Samir Sardana vs Union Bank Of India on 8 November, 2021

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Union Bank Of India on 8 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 17.06.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 30.04.2019 are as under:-

(i) Impose maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 20(1), of the RTI Act,2005;

(ii) Dismissal of the PIO (under the Ministry of Finance Rules and the Code of Conduct for Bank staff and other officers laid down by the Ministry of Finance) for illegal and mala fide action, and also under the Corporation Bank Service Rules- which has several provisions for the same;

Page 1 of 28

(iii) Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2), of the RTI Act,2005, and also under the Corporation Bank service rules which has several provisions for the same;

(iv) Recommendation to the Ministry of Finance for administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO;

(v) Direct the Respondents to refund the Application fee paid by Complainant while submitting RTI Application, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act;

(vi) Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate;

(vii) Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondents for defying the provisions of the Act (under the Corporation Bank Service Rules- which has several provisions for the same);

(viii) Compensate the complainant.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 30.04.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Kalakunj, seeking information which is reproduced as under:

(i) "Wilful Defaulters • PIO to confirm that it can provide the photos of the wilful defaulters of the bank

(ii) NPA • PIO to provide the details of NPA, in excess of Rs 35 crores, as at December 31,2018, as under:

o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who provided Personal Guarantees.

Page 2 of 28

• PIO to identify the NPA which had submitted testimonials, citations and recommendations from serving MP/MLAs and Constitutional Functionaries at the time of the loan sanction (in the last 7 years)

(iii) NPA Analytics • PIO identify within the above NPA list, the NPA accounts wherein fraud has been identified by the banker (in the last 7 years),at any of the following stages :

o Loan Sanction o Securities and Guarantees at the time of sanction of loan o Asset Purchases and Usage by the Borrower o Submission of SOA to Banker after purchase of assets o Certifications by CAs/Surveyors etc. o Falsification of accounts o Diversion of funds from operations o False representations for working capital limits and DP • If the PIO cannot identify the abovesaid fraud cases, in the abovesaid NPA list, but instead, it has a separate list of loan accounts, wherein fraud was identified (in the last 7 years) and which are also NPAs or Doubtful or loss accounts , the PIO can provide the said list as under: o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who provided Personal Guarantees • PIO to confirm that the banker had engaged any Forensic Auditor (irrespective of who paid the fees) or Directed the engagement of a forensic auditor or instructed the borrower to engage a Forensic Auditor (in the last 7 years) w.r.t its loan, NPA activities o If Yes, the date of the engagement and the name of the Forensic Auditor o If Yes, the names of the NPA and/or sectors covered in the Forensic Audit assignment Page 3 of 28 • W.r.t. the loan accounts of the Bank, PIO to provide the details of the FIR and charge sheet filed in the last 7 years, w.r.t. the loan processes, activities and transactions as under:

o Year of FIR, FIR No. Department (Crime Branch etc) and Station, Name of Borrower, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower, Names of Bank staff named in FIR o Year of Charge sheet, Charge sheet No., Department (Crime Branch etc) and Station, Name of Borrower, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower, Names of Bank staff named in Charge sheet • PIO to confirm that it has data w.r.t. credit facilities granted by the banker to borrowers whose manufacturing operations are within a proximity of 300-

500 kms of the manufacturing operations of the NPA of the same bank (for credits granted in the last 5 years)

(iv) Loss, doubtful or written off loans • PIO to provide the details of Doubtful and Loss accounts, in excess of Rs 20 crores, as at December 31, 2018, as under:

o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who provided Personal Guarantees • PIO to provide the details of Loan accounts wherein the Promoters are absconding, at December 31, 2018, as under:

o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who provided Personal Guarantees • PIO to provide the details of Loan accounts wherein the Promoters are not traceable, at December 31, 2018, as under:

o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who provided Personal Guarantees Page 4 of 28 • PIO to provide the details of the loans accounts written off by the bank from the Reserves or Capital Profits or Provisions or the Profit and Loss Account, as under :

o Aggregate amount in the last 5 years (year by year) o Borrower name and amount for sums more than or equal to Rs 5 crores

(v) Financing supply chain of banks • PIO to confirm if the Bank is allowed to finance the supply chain of its NPA borrowers - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or regular basis o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s as at December, 31, 2019 • PIO to confirm if it actually finances the supply chain of its NPA borrowers -

by fund or non fund based limits on an ad hoc or regular basis o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s as at December, 31, 2019 • PIO to confirm if the Bank is allowed to finance the supply chain of the NPA borrowers of other Banks - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or regular basis o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s as at December, 31, 2019 • PIO to confirm if it actually finances the supply chain of the NPA borrowers of other Banks - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or regular basis o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s as at December, 31, 2019

(vi) CDR/OTS • PIO to provide the details of CDR/OTS done by the bank in the last 7 years, as under:

o Year o Name of Borrower (CDR/OTS Account) Page 5 of 28 o Amount of NPA o Settlement taken by Sundry Creditors • PIO to identify within the above, the cases wherein the creditors have acquired the NPA

(vii) NPA Turnaround • PIO to confirm that it has data to identify the NPA who are operating as Job workers or Contract Manufacturers (wherein 35-50% of the aggregate production of the NPA is from Job work etc., or where 35-50% of the Gross Margin is derived from Job Work) • PIO to confirm that the banker had engaged any consultant (irrespective of who paid the consultant fees) or directed the engagement of a consultant or instructed the borrower to engage a consultant to assess options to salvage, turnaround, recover NPAs (in the last 7 years) o If Yes, the date of the engagement and the name of the consultant o If Yes, the names of the NPA and/or sectors covered in the Consultant assignment • PIO to confirm the dates and location of the meetings held with other banks to make, discuss or execute a strategy to recover NPA (in the last 30 months) as under:

o Name of Bankers and Dates of Meeting

(viii) Adhoc Limits • Adhoc Fund Based and Non-Fund Based limits sanctioned by the banker to borrowers (in the last 7 years), wherein the banker was not the lead banker or consortium banker, as under:

o Year of Sanction - Name of Borrower - Type of Limit

(ix) FX • Loss incurred by the bank in the last 7 years on account of FX Derivatives Products, as under :

o Unrecoverables on account of Counterparty default and Counterparty Risk Page 6 of 28 o Losses due to market movements on open positions or limited hedge positions

(x) Gifts, donations/DEA Fund and Commissions • Value of gifts and souvenirs provided by the bank, in the last 7 years, as under

o To Ministers o To Politicians o To Other Constitutional Functionaries o To Bureaucrats o To Senior Management o To Other Persons • PIO to confirm the value of donations and grants made to charities, NGOs and other entities, individuals and organizations in the last 7 years, as under: o Year of said donation o Person to whom the said grant was made • PIO to provide the amount of Commission paid on Deposits secured by the banker in the last 7 years, as under :

o Year and Amount • PIO to provide the amount of fund transferred to the RBI DEA Fund in the last 7 years (year by year)

(xi) Demo/GST • PIO to confirm if it has done any analysis in terms of a discussion report, analytics report, NPA recovery meeting to identify accounts that became NPA due to DEMO and GST • PIO to provide the amount of counterfeit currency deposited in the bank during the Demo drive of the GOI • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts opened upto 1 month before the Demo drive of the GOI • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts opened upto 1 month after the Demo drive of the GOI Page 7 of 28 • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts designated as Jan Dhan and other accounts, for Economically Weak Sections of Society during the Demo drive of the GOI • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts in Branches designated as Agri-Credit branches during the Demo drive of the GOI • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts designated as Agriculturists/Farmers and Agri Traders during the Demo drive of the GOI • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts designated as for the Gems and Jewellery Sector during the Demo drive of the GOI

(xii) Limitation and NPA Sales • PIO to provide the value and sector profile of the NPAs sold by the Bank, in the last 7 years, as under:

o Year and Sector - and within the same, the following:

o NPA Value o Sale Value • Provide the names of the borrowers and the amounts due w.r.t accounts where debtors/loan/credit recovery was barred by limitation (since 2010) o (If the information is available on the Bank website or other portal - PIO to direct the RTI Applicant to the same)

(xiii) Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the account holders are dormant (as of December 31, 2018) • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the activity in the lockers is Nil for more than 10 years (as of December 31, 2018) • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the activity in the lockers is Nil for more than 20 years (as of December 31, 2018) • PIO to provide the ageing schedule of all unclaimed deposits with the bank - in the aggregate (in the manner available with the bank) (as of December 31,2018) Page 8 of 28

(xiv) EB • PIO to confirm that any 2nd Appeal or Complaint related to the Bank is pending with the CIC related to the beneficial owners and/or beneficiaries of the Electoral Bonds issued by the Bank."

2. The CPIO, Recovery Division, vide letter dated 03.06.2019 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with the same, the complainant filed a complaint dated 17.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 17.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO had relied upon redundant, irrelevant and obsolete CIC citations; that the NPA data should be placed in public domain; that the Demo data was part of the RBI Regulatory requirement and so the CPIO cold not claim that the data was voluminous or that the data was not readily available; that several RBI circulars required bank branches to exercise caution and diligence w.r.t. deposits and vulnerable and suspicious accounts; that the respondent was not exempted from standards of oversight, transparency and accountability. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.06.2019 and the same is reproduced below:

"Willful Defaulters Reply: The information sought is in nature of confirmation. Any opinion or confirmation does not come within the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence denied. According to section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005, "information" means any material in any form including records, document, memos, e mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electric form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

NPA Page 9 of 28 Reply to (1): The information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to (2): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Further, the information sought does not come within the definition of "information" under section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and hence denied.

NPA Analytics Reply to point (1) and (2): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Moreover, the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to point (3): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Moreover, the information sought relates to commercial confidence and personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(d) and section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to point (4): The information sought is not available in the form in which it is sought and further collecting the information in the specified form, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and hence denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.Further, the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Page 10 of 28 the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to point (5): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Further, collecting the information in the form in which it is sought for, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and hence the same under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

Loss, Doubtful or Written Off Loans Reply to point (1) to (3): The information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to point (4)(i): The details are under:

                  Year                               Actual Written Off
                                                       (Rs. In Crores)
                2014-15                                      8.49
                2015-16                                     42.19
                2016-17                                     23.93
                2017-18                                     11.87
                2018-19                                     256.91

Reply to point (4)(ii): The information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Financing Supply Chain of Banks Reply to point (1) to (4): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Further, collecting the information in the form in which it Page 11 of 28 is sought for, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and hence the same under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

CDR/OTS Reply to point (1) and (2): The information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

NPA Turnaround Reply to point (1): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Further, collecting the information in the form in which it is sought for, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and hence the same under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

Reply to point (2): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Moreover, the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Reply to point (3): The information sought is not specific in nature and appears to be ambiguous. Moreover, the information sought relates to commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of Bank. Further, it relates to personal information which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Page 12 of 28

Adhoc Limits Reply: The information sought is not available in the form in which it is sought and further collecting the information in the specified form, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question and hence denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.Further, the information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

FX Reply: NIL Gift, Donations/DEA Fund and Commissions Reply to point (1): NIL Reply to point (2): The details regarding donations made from financial year 2012- 13 to 2018-19 for seven years were provided in tabular format with the names of the beneficiaries, dates of sanction, total sanction amount.

Reply to point (3): Bank is not paying any commission on securing deposits.

Reply to point (4): The fund transferred to RBI till March 2019 is Rs. 119.19 Cr.

Demo/GST Reply to point (1): The information sought is in nature of confirmation. Any opinion or confirmation does not come within the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence denied. According to section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005, "information" means any material in any form including records, document, memos, e mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electric form Page 13 of 28 and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

Reply to point (2): The total amount of counterfeit Currency deposited in the Bank during Demonetization period is Rs. 20,29,500/-.

Reply to point (3) to (8): The information sought is not available in the form in which it is sought and further collecting the information in the specified form, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and hence denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

Limitation and NPA Sales Reply to point (1): The information sought is not available in the form in which it is sought and further collecting the information in the specified form, will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and hence denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. However, the information available as to NPA Value and Sale Value are as under:

Our Bank has sold the NPAs in the last 7 years:

Total Outstanding Amount: Rs. 470.59 crores.

Sale Value: Rs. 224.90 Crores Reply to point (2): The information sought relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, as the information sought is third party information.

Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers Reply to point (1) to (3): The information sought is not available in the form in which it is sought and further collecting the information in the specified form, will Page 14 of 28 disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and hence denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.

Reply to point (4): The unclaimed deposits of more than 10 years is transferred to RBI DEAF Scheme from FY 2014-15. The gross amount remitted to RBI till March 2019 is Rs. 119.19 Crores.

EB Reply: Our Bank has not issued any Electoral Board."

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jaydeesh P, CPIO, Union Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that the respondent had rejected the information on the ground that the same was not specific and definite. The respondent had not provided specific reasons or rationale while refusing the information. The information had been sought through e-format or can be accessed in a few minutes on a CD and it would not divert resources. The data relating to NPA was collated and submitted to Ministry of Finance in various formats and frequencies, therefore, it was not cumbersome as claimed by the respondent. The complainant further contended that the information was sought in the interest of transparency, accountability and larger public interest. Therefore, he requested that his complaint may be allowed in terms of prayer. Moreover, his complaint may be converted and considered as second appeal and the relief for providing the information may be granted. The complainant further stated that he had also filed a first appeal before filing a complaint before the Commission and as per the guidelines available in the web portal of the CIC, the Commission may pass direction to the CPIO to provide the information while hearing a complaint in case first appeal was also filed by the complainant.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had addressed all the points raised by the complainant in his RTI application. The respondent contended that the complainant in most of his points had either requested for confirmation of certain facts mentioned by him in his application, or had asked the bank for Page 15 of 28 identification of fraud cases from the NPA cases, etc. The request in nature of confirmation, identification, or clarification were not covered under the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, no record or material being maintained in the form that could address the queries in the nature of seeking confirmation or clarification, the same could not be furnished to the complainant. Further, the details including cumulative number of written-off loans, total amount of counterfeit Currency deposited in the Bank, amount transferred to RBI under different schemes, etc. in the nature which was maintained and was under their custody was provided to the complainant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied to the RTI application dated 30.04.2019 on 03.06.2019. Before dwelling upon the complaint some of the relevant cases may be discussed.

6.1. In Mr. K.S. Vasudevan vs Ministry of Law and Justice [CIC/SS/A/2011/000828], the appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2010 seeking the following information:

"1(a) Whether it is mandatory and compulsory to continue the proceedings initiated by the Department when the criminal case is pending before any court of law against those officers;

1(b) Whether the judgments cited are binding on the Department or not; 2(i) If yes, then whether instructions have been issued by the Law Ministry to other Departments for keeping such cases in abeyance or not; and 2(ii) If not please cite the rules under which the Departmental proceedings can be conducted over-riding the above judgments."

The Commission while disposing of the second appeal vide its decision dated 09.09.2011 made the following observations:

"4. After hearing the respondent and on perusal of relevant documents, the Commission observes that the appellant sought legal opinion from respondent; the same is not covered within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as laid down in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of respondent."

6.2. In Sarojini Devi vs Life Insurance Corporation of India [CIC/LICOI/A/2017/1769933-BJ], the appellant filed an RTI application dated Page 16 of 28 21.08.2017 seeking information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice of LIC in view of the Supreme Court Judgment which had held in 2014 that no Government Department/ Government Corporation will apply Public Premises Act (PP Act) to protected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under trial by LIC Estate Officer under PP Act which had been discharged/cancelled by LIC and premises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme Court Judgment, etc. The Commission vide its decision dated 05.04.2019 while disposing of the second appeal and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (decided on January 4, 2010) made the following observations.

6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."

7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."

The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."

Page 17 of 28

6.3. In Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao vs. CPIO, Andhra Bank [CIC/SG/A/2012/001449], the RTI appellant filed an application dated 04.11.2011 seeking the following information:

"1.Does it not expedient for the bank authorities concerned to verify and ensure that everything is in the points after the customer leaves the locker room?

2. In the period 1-10-11 to 28-10-2011 no efforts to have been evinced to notice the fact of tempering of the locker. Can the reasons for this lapse on the part of the concerned authorities be permissible as per bank's statutory rules?

3. Does it not require causing an immaculate intensive check of all the locking devices and ensuring safety in a foolproof manner by the Banking officials concerned just before they leave precincts of the Bank each day?

4. Are there any specific rules allowing the bank authorities to engage an unauthorized mechanic for the purpose?

5. Had there been strict surveillance of the bank officials concern throughout the operation or this repaired word?

6. Are there any rules under Bank's Statute to allow a private person in the locker room without the surveillance of the bank officials?"

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide its decision dated 27.06.2012:

"The Appeal is partially allowed. The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the Manual/Rules as directed above to the Appellant before 15 July 2012."

6.4. In Shri Fasih Akhtar vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office [CIC/CC/A/2015/002259], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2014 seeking information on four points:

"(i) date of receipt of letter which was sent to the Prime Minister's Office;

(ii) what action has been taken by the PMO on his representation dt. 8-9-2014 relating to prohibition of cow slaughtering;

Page 18 of 28

(iii) what is the reason why the Prime Minister did not convey congratulations on the occasion of Eid Day to the Muslim community; and

(iv) it is against the Constitutional Rights that on the occasion of Hindu festivals Prime Minister conveys congratulations but on the festive occasion of Muslim he does not."

The Commission while disposing of the appeal while disposing of the appeal vide its decision dated 30.08.2016 held:

"The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of"

6.5. In Govind Mittal vs. CPIO, National Highway Authority of India, Faridabad [CIC/SS/A/2012/003439] the appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.07.2010 seeking information on 3 points:

"(1) provide information that on how much distance should heconstruct the boundary of h is HouseKothi No: 69 which is situated at Gandhi Nagar, Agra, U.P near to Highway no: 2 because at present he permission to construct boundary of his house at 82 feet away from the main Road of the Highway no. 2 from NHAI.

(2) At what rate compensation will be given for the acquired land by the NHAI?

(3) Provide information on what distance should he construct the main building of his House?"

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 29.08.2013:

"The Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking advice and clarification whereas under

the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only information as is held by the Respondent in material form can be provided. The Respondent are not expected to create information or to give advise. The information sought by the Appellant therefore does not qualify as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Page 19 of 28

6.6. In Kothandaraman Venkataraman vs. CPIO, Bank of India [CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/166537], the appellant filed RTI application dated 17.07.2017 seeking the following information:

(i) "Confirmation from telephone service provider for messages delivered from this ATM-TCE9038/ triggered by this ATM for my attempted withdrawal transaction no.

348748 on 8.9.16 and any other sms sent to my phone by your service provider for this transaction the same day.

(ii) name of telephone service provider for cross verification print out.

(iii) Appellant want the calibrated maximum delivery in Rupees machine-TCE9038 can deliver per withdrawal transaction, this when was last calibrated before 8.9.16 date and value. It can be 15000 or 10000 only.

(iv) inspecting this record wherever it is recorded / registered must be in Chennai."

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 09.04.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that there is no danger to life of any individual as claimed by the respondent under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act in providing information. The information may be supplied within 15 days from the date of issue of this order."

6.7. In Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs. CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank [CIC/PASBK/A/2019/123506], the appellant filed RTI application seeking the following information:

 "Kindly provide the following information with respect to administrative control of Zonal Office, Bareilly:

(i) Number of employees, cadre wise& year-wise, who have been placed under Suspension, since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

(ii) Total remuneration, cadre-wise & year-wise, paid to suspended employees since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

(iii) Certified copies of the rules relied by the bank for review of suspension between 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

Page 20 of 28

(iv) Name & designation of officials who were members of the Review Committee for Suspension during the period 01.01.2013 to date of providing information." The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide order dated 20.09.2021:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and requisite information in response to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application had not been provided so far. The stipulated time for transferring the RTI application to the concerned Branch having elapsed, it was the responsibility of the respondent to obtain the same and provide it to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that information in respect to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application be made available to the appellant along with uploading the same under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act on their web portal within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."

6.8. Definition of Information under RTI Act, 2005 "Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines 'Information' as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, email, opinion, contract report logbooks, samples, models held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force".

Further, Section 2 (i) defines the term "record" which includes:

a) document, manuscript and file

b) microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document

c) reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

d) other material produced by a computer or any other device RTI Act provides that only such information is required to be supplied under the Act, which already exists in material form and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. According to the Act, the public information officer is not Page 21 of 28 to generate or interpret information, nor is he or she to solve problems raised by applicants or to respond to hypothetical questions.

Further, the term "held by or under the control of public authority" in section 2(j) of RTI Act has to be reads in a manner that it effectuates and is harmony with the term "information" as defined in section 2(f).

6.8.1 The definition of "right to information" as given under section 2(j) in the RTI Act is reproduced as under:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a)....

(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"

6.8.2 In Institute of chartered accountant of India V. Shahunak H. Satya and ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 of 2011] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:

"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make distinction regarding information intended to bring transparency to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and Page 22 of 28 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."

6.8.3 In Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCALE 645] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:

"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.

.

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."

6.8.4 In Khanapuram Gandaiah V Administrative Officer & Ors. [S.L.P. (Civil) 34868 of 2009], the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 laid down the following observations:

"This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such Page 23 of 28 opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion."

6.8.5 In case of A.K. Vasudev V. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi, it was held that respondent is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto V. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: "The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

6.8.6 Right to information only to citizen of India The Right to Information Act gives right to information only to citizen of India. It does not make provision for giving information to companies, associations, corporations etc. However, if an application is made by an employee of any corporation, association, company, NGO indicating his name and such employee/officer bearer is a citizen of India then in that case it would presume that a citizen has sought information and the information may be supplied to him/her.

Page 24 of 28

6.8.7 Information relating to any private body The objective is to make public authority liable to make the information under their custody accessible to the citizens and such obligation is not on the private bodies. However, in case the information which as a mandatory filing or otherwise is available with the public authorities being public record subject to exemptions is accessible under RTI. Information relating to any private body although cannot be obtained directly but can be obtained through a public authority if law allows public authority to access it through mandatory filing or inspection etc. and thus become custodian.

6.8.8 In case of Poorna Prajna High School V. Central Information Commission it was held that it is mandatory for public authorities to disseminate information that is accessible to them. As a result, information that a public body has access to is deemed information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Here public authority is referred to as the framework or the body under which the institution is governed.

6.8.9 In case of Reserve Bank of India V. Jayantilal Mistry the Court briefly analysed section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information to include "... information relating to any private body which can accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." Using this inclusive definition, the Court held that, even if a fiduciary relationship existed between the RBI and other banks, section 2(f) would render them accessible to the public."

6.8.10 As per the RTI rules 2012, an application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant. However, the RTI application filed by the complainant was having around 1800 words.

6.8.11 Perusal of the RTI application against which the complainant has filed complaint reveals that he has sought details of Willful Defaulters, NPA Analytics, Loss, doubtful or written off loans, Financial supply chain of banks, CRD/OTS, NPA Page 25 of 28 Turnaround, Adhoc limits, FX, Gifts, donations/DEA Fund and Commissions, Demo/GST, Limitation and NPA Sales, Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers and EB. Perusal further reveals that in most of the cases he has not sought any material or copy of the order instead he has sought confirmation, analytics, details of processes etc. Thus he has not sought records or documents which were in the custody of the public authority.

6.9 The position when a complaint is filed by the complainant and the same is registered under Section 18 of the RTI Act may be discussed in the first instance.

6.9.1 During hearing the complainant raised the issue of converting complaint into appeal and prayed for the information in terms of the guidelines available on the CIC portal. Succinctly, the facts of the case on the subject are that earlier the field was occupied by an order dated 21st September, 2017, the relevant para 1 of the order is re- produced as under:

"In a case of complaint(s) where the applicant seeks information and also requests for imposition of penalty on the CPIO, the complaint should be registered as Second Appeal, in case First Appeal was also filed by the applicant, as both reliefs sought by the applicant can be made available under Section 19".

6.9.2 Subsequently, the order was amended vide order dated 14th June,2018. The relevant portion of the order under the head Registration of Complaint is re-produced as under:

"During scrutiny of Complaint, if it is found that the Complainant has requested for the information along with the imposition of the penalty, the Complaint should be registered as Second Appeal, provided first appeal had been filed by the Complainant. However, if the first appeal has not been filed, the person concerned may be asked to file first appeal before filing second appeal."

6.9.3 The matter was discussed during the meeting held on 22nd May,2019 including the order of the CIC dated 14th June,2019. It was unanimously decided that the same would be withdrawn. The order dated 27th May,2019 withdrawing the order dated 14th June,2018 holds the field for the present.

Page 26 of 28

6.9.4 It may be noted that while considering the issue as to whether the relief under section 19 of the Act maybe granted under section 18 of the RTI Act or not, the Commission in Sanjay Ramesh Shirodkar vs. Mumbai International Airport Ltd.[CIC/MA/C/2008/000195] passed the following observations vide its order dated 18.05.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant had not filed second appeal aggrieved by non receipt of information/reply in response to his RTI application and first appeal before approaching this commission by way of complaint. Prima facie, it may not be unreasonable for MIAL to consider itself not covered within the meaning of public authority under the RTI Act. Keeping in view of the above facts, it might not be proper for this Commission, on a complaint, where the relief sought had been punishment for not maintaining a list of CPIOs to punish without holding MIAL a 'public authority' or to treat complaint as second appeal. The ideal situation should have been that the complainant had exhausted available remedies i.e. First Appeal and/or Second Appeal. Having been not declared as 'public authority', MIAL might not be under an obligation to disclose the information requested for by the complainant nor maintain a list of CPIOs as mandated by the RTI Act.

6.9.5 The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs State of Manipur and Another [(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1] has held :-

"The only order which can be passed by the Information Commissioner under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. The Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.

Page 27 of 28

The appellant after having applied for information under Section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the information is provided under Section 19 of the Act."

6.10 The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant has filed complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. He filed the complaint without exhausting the remedy of filing second appeal. In view of the factual as well as legal discussions made above, the Commission does not find any substance in the complaint. Hence the complaint is rejected.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 01.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA 1st Floor, Katayani Mahamaye, Annapurnaneshwari Complex, Kalakunj Circle, MANGALORE - 575 003 (ERSTWHILE CORPORATIONBANK) THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 1st Floor, Katayani Mahamaye, Annapurnaneshwari Complex, Kalakunj Circle, MANGALORE - 575003 SAMIR SARDANA Page 28 of 28

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission