Central Information Commission
Shri Ajay Kumar Gulati vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 11 September, 2009
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/SM/C/2009/135, 731, 964 & SM/A/2009/000279
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18) & (19)
Dated: 11 September 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Ajay Kumar Gulati,
E-28 GF, Kalkaji,
New Delhi - 110 019.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,
Zonal Office, Ahimsa Bhawan,
Shankar Road, New Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 060.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Rajeev K. Kaushik, Manager (Law), was present.
The Appellant has filed four different appeals against the orders of the same CPIO and the first Appellate Authority and, therefore, we have clubbed all these cases together for hearing.
2. The brief facts of the cases are as under.
3. The Appellant in four separate applications dated 30 October 2008, 10 November 2008, 21 April and 3 June 2009, requested the CPIO for a large number of information on a variety of matters concerning the auditing of a particular Branch, the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him and the payment of subsistence allowance to him during the period of his suspension, etc. The CPIO did not reply to any of these requests within the stipulated period of 30 days and, eventually, when he replied, except in one case, did not provide any specific information claiming that most of the queries of the Appellant did not amount to information. The Appellant had moved the Appellate Authority in all the cases but is not clear if the Appellate Authority passed any order. Finally, the Appellant has come before the Central Information Commission in second appeal in all these cases seeking directions to the CPIO for providing him with the information.
CIC/SM/C/2009/135, 731, 964 & SM/A/2009/000279
4. During the hearing, both the parties were present. We heard their submissions and carefully examined the original applications for information and the eventual reply given by the CPIO. It is noted that invariably in every case, except in one case, the CPIO failed to reply within the stipulated period, thereby rendering himself liable for imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 as provided under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We also note that the CPIO without assigning any valid reason or citing any specific provision of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, interpreted most of the requests not amounting to information. The logic behind his conclusion is totally unclear.
5. It is admitted that the Appellant has asked for far too much information, the collection and collation of which would surely be a highly time consuming affair, especially since the information relates to a period nearly a decade and half old. It is for the CPIO to have considered this aspect and acted as per the provisions of the Section 7(9) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which he did not do. At this stage, therefore, there is no other way but the CPIO has to provide the desired information, if available, and cannot no longer take the plea that the information sought is voluminous and time consuming.
6. In view of the above, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of our order, point-wise information on all the queries listed by the Appellant in his four separate applications, preferably in a tabular format, and enclosing therewith certified photocopies of the relevant desired documents, including file notings. If, the CPIO is unable to find out any information, the relevant document or file those having been weeded out on the basis of the retention schedule for records followed by the Bank, we direct him to clearly state so and also enclose a copy of the relevant guideline in this regard.
7. As far as the delay in reply to the Appellant is concerned, we direct the CPIO to explain to us in writing the reasons for not providing the information within the stipulated period. If we do not receive his CIC/SM/C/2009/135, 731, 964 & SM/A/2009/000279 satisfactory written explanation within 20 working days from the receipt of this order, we will proceed to decide on imposing the maximum penalty of Rs.25, 000/- on each of the delayed cases as provided under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
8. With the above directions, the four appeals are disposed off.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) 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) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/C/2009/135, 731, 964 & SM/A/2009/000279