Central Information Commission
Surya Kumar Nayak vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 26 December, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba GangnathMarg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.CIC/UCOBK/C/2022/138379
Surya Kumar Nayak ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: UCO Bank
Kolkata ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 27.06.2022 FA : Nil Complaint : 12.08.2022
CPIO : Nil FAO : Nil Hearing : 21.12.2023
Date of Decision: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please supply copy of letters of action taken as per section 5(4) of RTI Act 2005 by the CPIO Daleep Singh Garbyal after receipt of RTI application of dt 12/04/22 of the applicant Sri Surya Kumar Nayak.
(ii) Number of PMSBY of like cases pending at UCO Bank Head Office, Kolkata as well as at the level of Insurance Company for the period from Nov. 2021 to till date.Page 1 of 3
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a Complaint dated 12.08.2022.
3. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Chief Manager, PIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The respondent, while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, stated that the complainant had sought information regarding the action taken report on his application dated 12.04.2022 and the number of PMSBY cases pending at UCO Bank Head Office. He submitted that the complainant filed multiple RTI applications on the same subject matter, i.e status of the insurance amount of his client, i.e Mr. Subash Chandra Gouda and that suitable replies on the same subject matter have already been furnished to the complainant. However, the claim of PMSBY has been settled, and the amount has been credited to the nominee's account, i.e Mr. Subhash Chandra Gouda on 15.06.2022. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the complainant, he said.
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent on 21.05.2022. Perusal of records reveals that the complainant had raised grievances through multiple RTI applications and sought redressal of the same under the guise of seeking information. It may be noted that despite having received repetitive RTI applications, the CPIO/CPIOs have dealt with all the RTI applications in a categorical and timely manner which has resulted in exhaustion of manpower and public resources. In that regard, the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, [(2011) 8 SCC 497] may be relied upon:-
".67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and Page 2 of 3 accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the nonproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace; tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
6. In view of above, the Complaint is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 22.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
UCO Bank, Nodal CPIO,
RTI Branch, Head Office,
10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata,
W. B. - 700001
2. Surya Kumar Nayak
Page 3 of 3