Central Information Commission
Mrakshay Kumar Malhotra vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 14 January, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002363
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of first hearing : 29th October 2015
Date of first order : 29th October 2015
Date of second hearing : 4th December 2015
Date of second order : 4th December 2015
Date of third order : 14th January 2016
Date of final order : 14th January 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra,
AC1/179A, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi 110088
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Bank of India,
ZO, New Delhi Zone, Jeevan Bharti, Tower1, Level5, 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi 110001 Attendance during the hearing on 29.10.2015 and 4.12.2015.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Mohit Gupta, Manager (Law) was present in person.
Attendance during the hearing on 14.1.2016.
CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri P. J. S. Walia, Deputy Zonal Manager and CPIO.
2. Shri Prateek Mishra, Manager (Law).
3. Shri Mohit Gupta, Manager (Law) was present in person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Hearing on 29.10.2015
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 24.6.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on thirteen points regarding availability of lockers in the Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi and related issues, came up today. The Appellant stated that a large part of the information was denied under Section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. He questioned the decision of the CPIO in doing so, which was endorsed by the FAA vide his order dated 23.8.2014. The representative of the Respondents stated that the bank was now willing to provide the information, if so desired by the Commission. However, in response to our query, he was unable to provide the grounds on which the CPIO invoked Section 8 (1) (d) for denial of a part of the information. The representative of the Respondents stated that the Appellant had taken the issue of lockers to the Banking CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 Ombudsman also and he was informed by the office of the Ombudsman on 29.9.2014 that there appeared to be no deficiency of service on the part of the bank. The Appellant stated that the reply of the Ombudsman was not related to his RTI application, which needs to be seen on its own merit, in the light of the RTI Act.
2. We have examined the records and the submissions made by both the parties. It is seen that a part of the information sought by the Appellant concerns the locker accounts of third party customers of the bank and such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, we see no justification for invocation of Section 8 (1) (d) for denial of information in some cases, even though it pertained to information of a general nature such as the total number of lockers available and did not pertain to any particular customer. In view of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to respond pointwise to the RTI application dated 24.6.2014 and provide all the information, with the exception of the information that pertains to third party customers. The CPIO should comply with our above directive within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge.
CIC/SH/A/2014/002363
3. The Appellant stated that the information was denied deliberately by invoking Section 8 (1) (d), which was not applicable in this case. He prayed for imposition of December 2015 at 10.00 a.m. th penalty on the CPIO. We will hear this matter again on 4 at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. Shri P. J. S. Walia, Deputy Zonal Manager and CPIO is directed to be present at the next hearing to offer his explanation regarding the grounds underlying his reply dated 12.7.2014, vide which the information was denied in response to most of the points of the RTI application. We will take a further decision on the issue of penalty after hearing Shri P. J. S. Walia.
Hearing on 4.12.2015
4. The matter came up again today. Shri P. J. S. Walia, CPIO was not present. Shri Mohit Gupta, Manager (Law), who appeared on behalf of the Respondents, submitted to us a letter dated 1.12.2015 from Shri Walia, stating that he would not be available for the hearing on 4.12.2015 as he would be abroad on that date and requesting for a date of hearing any day after 10.12.2015. In the above context, we note that the fact of the second hearing taking place on 4.12.2015 was mentioned in our interim order dated 29.10.2015. Therefore, Shri Walia had sufficient notice to appear for it. The CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 representative of the Respondents did not make any submission regarding the visit abroad of Shri Walia being the result of any emergency. Therefore, it would have been planned sufficiently in advance. However, Shri Walia chose to send his letter for postponement of the hearing with the representative of the bank, who submitted it to us during the hearing. This resulted in wastage of time of the Commission, which could have been devoted to another appeal, had Shri Walia sought postponement of the hearing well in time. The above situation also resulted in needless effort by the Appellant to visit the Commission. We take a serious note of the above conduct on the part of the Respondents. During the hearing, the representative of the Respondents submitted to us a copy of the CPIO's letter dated 1.12.2015 in compliance of the directive given in paragraph 2 above. The Appellant stated that he was not satisfied with this reply.
th
5. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 18 January, 2016 at 10.00 a.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. During the next hearing, besides considering the Appellant's prayer for imposition of penalty on the CPIO, we would also consider the issue of compliance by the CPIO with the directive contained in paragraph 2 above. Hearing on 14.1.2016 CIC/SH/A/2014/002363
6. The matter came up again today. The hearing was advanced to 14.1.2016 at the request of Shri Walia, CPIO. Shri P. J. S. Walia, CPIO was informed of the Appellant's contention that he deliberately denied the information by invoking Section 8 (1) (d), which was not applicable. In this context, we recall that in paragraph 2, we had expressed the view that there was no justification for invocation of Section 8 (1) (d) in cases, where the information sought was of a general nature, such as the total number of lockers available etc., and did not pertain to any particular customer. Shri P. J. S. Walia stated that each branch of the bank competes with branches of other banks in its vicinity in the matter of locker business. It was, therefore, his understanding that revelation of the information concerning the number of lockers available in the branch might hurt the competitive position of the bank. He further submitted that the bank has only a limited number of lockers in each branch because of limitations of space and this problem is even more acute in Delhi, where renting of space is very costly. Therefore, the bank cannot satisfy the demand of every customer for a locker. In response to our query in respect of the submission made by the Respondents on 29.10.2015 (reference paragraph 1 above), the Respondents stated that the Appellant had approached the Banking Ombudsman, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent bank and was informed by them that there appeared to be no deficiency of service on their part. On being asked to CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 substantiate his contention that the CPIO had deliberately denied the information, the Appellant stated that Section 8 (1) (d) was invoked in some cases, even though it was not applicable. He also alleged illtreatment at the hands of the Branch Manager, when he applied for a locker.
7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. As stated above, we have differed with the decision of the CPIO to invoke Section 8 (1) (d) in some cases. In this context, we note that it is not uncommon for the Commission to overrule the decisions of CPIOs. However, this does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the denial of information was deliberate. The Appellant has repeatedly alleged that his request for a locker was not treated properly by the bank and appears to imply that the CPIO was trying to protect the action of the bank by denying the information to him. In this context, it is noted that the Appellant's allegation regarding deficiency of service on the part of the bank has not been accepted by the Banking Ombudsman. There is nothing on record to substantiate the Appellant's contention that the denial of information in this case was deliberate. The Appellant again prayed for action against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. In this context, we note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3114/2007]: CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 "17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued." In view of the foregoing, we do not regard it as a fit case for action against the CPIO under Section 20. However, by virtue of the power vested in us under Section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, we direct the Respondents to periodically organise familiarization - cum training programmes for their officers dealing with RTI matters so that they are fully aware of the developments in the field of RTI work, including court judgments etc., while dealing with RTI applications. The CPIO is directed to put up a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, to the Zonal Manager.
8. During the hearing on 4.12.2015, the Appellant had complained that he was not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO, in compliance of the Commission's order, vide his letter dated 1.12.2015. In this context, he stated during today's hearing that the figures given at Sl. No. 1 to 5 by the CPIO in his above letter do not confirm the figure CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 of his number in the waiting list that was given to him by the Respondents at some stage earlier. He was informed that the CPIO has now given him detailed figures and in case he believes that his request for locker was denied wrongly, he is at liberty to take up the matter at an appropriate forum. The Appellant further submitted that in response to point No. 6, he has not been informed as to since when some lockers were lying vacant. The CPIO is directed to provide the information, available on records, in this regard. Regarding point No. 10, wherein the Appellant had requested to be allowed inspection of records related to lockers, he stated that inspection of the relevant records was not allowed, even though he visited the branch for this purpose. He also stated that instead of showing him a proper waiting list, the bank officials showed him only a diary page, where some entries had been made. The Appellant was informed that he could not be allowed to inspect the records concerning the locker requests of / lockers held by third party customers. At this, the Appellant stated that he should at least be shown the register, where the entry of his request for a locker was made and the number of waiting list that was assigned to him. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that this information is maintained by the Manager in a diary. The CPIO is directed to inform the Appellant about the manner in which the information concerning requests for lockers is maintained. He should also provide to the Appellant a certified photocopy of the entry of CIC/SH/A/2014/002363 his request in the relevant diary / register; as well as his waiting list number as per the above record. The Appellant also complained that the information sought at Sl. No. 13 regarding the rules / regulations concerning punitive / disciplinary action against bank officials has not been provided. We see no ground to deny this information and the CPIO is directed to provide a certified copy of the relevant rules / regulations to the Appellant. The CPIO should comply with our above directives, within ten days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge.
9. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/002363