Central Information Commission
Mrs Venkatachalam vs State Bank Of India on 27 July, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000701, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000702, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000703,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000704, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000705, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000741,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000742, No.CIC/MP/A/2016/000743, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000906,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000907, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000908, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000911,
No.CIC/MP/A/2016/000912, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000913, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000956,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001004, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001005, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001051,
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001221, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001237,
Appellant : Shri S. Venkatachalam, Nizamabad.
Public Authority : State Bank of Hyderabad, Nizamabad/Hyderabad
Date of Hearing : 27th July, 2016.
Date of Decision : 27th July, 2016
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri B. Devadas, Chief Manager & Shri Vivek
Singh, Dy. Manager at CIC.
ORDER
The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, as stated by the respondent authority, was an ex- official of the State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH). While working as branch manager, he was involved in grave misconduct and defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs. 2.69 crore by sanctioning agricultural advances on the basis of fake pattadar passbooks against the bank's guidelines and norms in this respect. In view of serious nature of misconduct committed by the appellant, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him culminating in his dismissal from service. He has been since then seeking details related to or incidental to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him.
The appellant had conveyed his inability to attend the hearing vide his letter dated 19.07.2016. He has withdrawn four appeals (No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ 000701, 742, 907 and
911) out of the 20 appeals which were fixed for hearing today. He had further requested for being provided with information in rest of the cases.
1. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000701 RTI application : 16.05.2015 CPIO's reply : 16.06.2015 First appeal : 17.06.2015 FAA's order : 07.07.2015 Second appeal : 20.02.2016 1 1.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, submitted RTI application before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad, while mentioning that he was charge sheeted alleging that he had sanctioned 900 crop loans amounting to Rs. 313.92 lakh against fake/tempered title deeds to relations, sought information regarding the correct status of fake/tempered title deeds and the actual amount of loss that accrued to the bank.
1.2 The CPIO responded that the information being sought was of interrogatory nature and therefore did not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied the appellant approached the first appellate authority who directed the CPIO to furnish the crop loans sanctioned at Reddypet branch against fake/tempered title deeds. Aggrieved with response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for correct number of crop loans sanctioned against fake/tempered title deeds.
1.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided him the information endorsing a copy of their letter dated 27.7.2015 sent by the CPIO concerned to DGM (Compliance) intimating that as per record available, the number of crop loans sanctioned against fake/tempered title deeds was 885.
1.4 From the foregoing it is apparent that the CPIO had not addressed the reply to the appellant concerned. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the number of fake/tempered title deeds sought through the RTI application to the appellant, again within seven days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
2. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000702 RTI application : 14.05.2015 CPIO's reply : 16.06.2015 First appeal : 16.06.2015 FAA's order : 07.07.2015 Second appeal : 20.02.2016 2.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the copy of service regulation/system and procedures regarding restricting the transactions from customers account to his OD account and vice versa.
2.2 The CPIO intimated the appellant that the information sought did not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who directed the CPIO, Regional Office, Armoor, to furnish the copy of system and procedures, State Bank of Hyderabad regulations/guidelines/circular prohibiting transactions from staff account to customer's account. Dissatisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission. He, however, did not mention the specific point on which he sought information in the second appeal. He sent written submission dated 19.7.2016 again stating that he had not received the information from the CPIO.
22.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had complied with the FAA's directions on 27.7.2015 itself intimating that the copy of system and procedures, guidelines prohibiting transactions from staff account to customer's account and vice versa was not available. They added, however, that they had obtained the relevant of the Officers Service Regulations, 1979 from the head office and they will provide a copy to the appellant.
2.4 In view of the submissions of the respondents, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the relevant guidelines, as available, to the appellant within seven days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
3. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000703 RTI application : 16.05.2015 CPIO's reply : 16.06.2015 First appeal : 17.06.2015 FAA's order : 07.07.2015 Second appeal : 20.02.2016 3.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information on his known sources of income and the amount of transactions beyond his known source of income while stating that it had been alleged that many transactions, both cash and transfer had taken place in his personal OD account which were beyond his known source of income.
3.2 The CPIO replied that the information sought was not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who directed the CPIO and AGM, Region-IV, Amroor to provide the available information on source of his income other than salary as declared from the assets and liabilities statement submitted to the bank. Aggrieved with not having received any reply, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that he had not received any information so far.
3.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had promptly complied with the FAA's order and after a thorough search to trace the assets and liabilities statement, intimated the appellant that it was not available with the branch.
3.4 The Commission holds that the respondents can provide the information that is available with them and as this record is not available, the Commission cannot cast any obligation on the CPIO to provide the same. The appeal is disposed of.
4. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000704 RTI application : 14.05.2015 CPIO's reply : 18.05.2015 First appeal : 05.06.2015 FAA's order : 09.07.2015 Second appeal : 20.02.2016 3 4.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning that out of 18 crop loans accounts sanctioned on 15.4.2009, for Reddypet branch, only ten accounts were noted by the Regional Office and the other eight were noted to have been sanctioned by the branch without the approval of the controlling authority. Therefore, he asked for copy of the approval note of the controlling authority for the ten crop loan accounts along with copy of the letter from RO to the branch to send the loan applications to the RO for appraisal.
2. The CPIO intimated that the note copy was not traceable in the bank's record. The appellant, aggrieved by the CPIO's denial of information approached the first appellate authority who directed the CPIO and AGM, RO, Amroor to re-examine the availability of the information sought by the appellant and to provide the relevant information, if available. No having received any further information the appellant came in appeal before the Commission seeking the copy of approval note of the controlling authority for ten crop loan accounts. He reiterated the same through his letter dated 19.7.2016 to the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had complied with the directions of the FAA on 27.7.2015 itself intimating the appellant that this record was not available. They stated that the old record which was kept in the old building had got spoilt because of water seepage and was not traceable. Now the branch has been shifted from the old building to a new building on 10.6.2016. The respondents further added that the compliance to FAA's order was sent to the appellant through registered post on the same day.
4.4 The Commission finds that the appellant has been intimated of the status obtaining in the matter regarding the non-availability of record in question. The respondents can only provide information that is existing and available which is not the position in the present case. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is disposed of.
5. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000705 RTI application : 04.06.2015 CPIO's reply : 08.05.2015 First appeal : 20.06.2015 FAA's order : 07.07.2015 Second appeal : 20.02.2016 5.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought copies of three letters of regional office pertaining to fraud that occurred in Reddypet due to fake patta books.
5.2 The CPIO provided a copy of a letter dated 8.5.2010 and intimated that the letters dated 17.8.2010 and 14.9.2010 were not traceable in their record. Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant approached the first appellate authority requesting him to advise the CPIO to get information from Reddypet branch and provide it to him. The FAA directed the CPIO to re-examine the availability of information sought while directing the CPIO to provide it, if available. The appellant had not mentioned anything about the compliance, if 4 any, made by the CPIO and appealed to the Commission to get the two letters dated 17.8.2010 and 14.9.2010 furnished to him.
5.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that, in compliance to the FAA's order, they had already intimated the appellant about the non-availability of the two letters in question. They stated that they had made sincere efforts to search for these letters but these could not be found.
5.4 In view of the position of non-availability of the copies of the letters being sought by the appellant, and the respondents having searched the documents with no fruitful results, the Commission finds no need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
6. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000743 RTI application : 12.08.2015 CPIO's reply : 11.09.2015 First appeal : 06.10.2015 FAA's order : 13.10.2015 Second appeal : 18.02.2016 6.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information regarding the details of the training programmes attended by him during the period 1.1.2005 to 6.10.2009 at Staff Training Centre of SBH.
6.2 The CPIO informed the appellant about the non-availability of this information in the branch. The FAA who had been approached by the appellant directed the CPIO to provide the information if it was available with the Regional Office. The appellant, thereafter, made an appeal to the Commission requesting the Commission to direct the CPIO and FAA to provide him the information sought.
6.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated the position that the record regarding the deputation of a particular officer for training was not maintained by the branch or the Regional Office. Therefore, they had shown their inability to provide the same. They had, however, complied with the FAA's directions and intimated the position to the appellant through their letter dated 21.10.2015.
6.4 On the Commission questioning the respondents that the Staff Training Centres concerned should be having the details of trainees who attended the various training programmes, they replied in affirmative. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to obtain the information from the two training centres at Aurangabad and Secunderabad and intimate the training courses attended by the appellant from 2005 to 2009, if any, to the appellant within thirty days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
57. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000906 RTI application : 01.12.2015 CPIO's reply : 01.01.2016 First appeal : 21.01.2016 FAA's order : 27.01.2016 Second appeal : 26.03.2016 7.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought copies of four letters dated 16.10.2009, 16.6.2010, 7.3.2011 and 12.9.2012 along with the second stage advice of the CVO.
7.2 The CPIO rejected the request quoting the CIC judgment dated 9.7.2014 according to which "Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the RTI Act."
"The Commission infers from the above that though RTI Act, did not specifically provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and various provisions of the RTI Act, that right of citizen to information is limited to one time and does not extend to repetition of request for that directly or indirectly."
7.3 Aggrieved with the denial of information by the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who transferred it to the GM, Warangal Network, as the RTI structure in the bank had undergone a change and GM, Warangal Network had become the appellate authority. The appellant had not enclosed the order of the FAA with his second appeal. He came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for information.
7.4 The matter was heard by the Commission. Vide his submissions dated 19.7.2016, the appellant stated that his application had been rejected mentioning that he was making repetitive applications to promote private interest. He was, however, dismissed from service in the matter of fake title deeds involving borrowers, revenue officials and others and he reiterated his request for the information sought. The respondents stated that the FAA had duly adjudicated on the first appeal by upholding the CPIO's decision. The respondents added that the appellant had made more than 200 applications and had been seeking information in piece meal which had been telling on the respondent authority's lean human resources. They also stated that the CIC in its judgment dated 9.7.2014 has held that "when an applicant uses an opportunity on a particular subject as per the law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself, he cannot file another application for a bit or piece which he forgot ....."
7.5 The Commission observes that there is no doubt that the appellant has been making repetitive applications asking for information on one or two points in each application which would certainly result in avoidable diversion of manpower deployed in responding to his innumerable RTI applications, but in this case, the appellant has sought copies of certain letters including the second stage advice of the CVO. The CVO's advice, in any case, is to 6 be provided to the charged officer as per CVC's letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.9.2000. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide copy of the second stage advice of the CVO to the appellant. As regards the other letters, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the matter afresh and provide the copies of the four letters, if available and disclosable, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in view within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
8. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000908 RTI application : 06.01.2016 CPIO's reply : 06.02.2016 First appeal : 20.02.2016 FAA's order : --
Second appeal : 26.03.2016 8.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the extracts of the inward register at
Reginoal office, Nizamabad from April 11, 2009 to May 10, 2009 showing the correspondence from Reddypet branch.
8.2 The CPIO denied information in view of the repetitive request for information for private purpose. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. The appellant therefore came in appeal before the Commission seeking the same information vide his letter dated 27.7.2016, he has requested the Commission not to treat the application as one for promoting private interest.
8.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the FAA had adjudicated in the matter vide his letter dated 24.3.2016 addressed to the appellant and had upheld the CPIO's decision.
8.4 The Commission, on perusing the record and hearing the respondents, finds that the CPIO has not gone into the merits of the case, therefore, directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI application and provide the copy of the inward register pertaining to the appellant's case while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in view. The appeal is disposed of.
9. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000912 RTI application : 19.11.2015 CPIO's reply : 13.01.2016 First appeal : 21.01.2016 FAA's order : 06.02.2016 Second appeal : 30.03.2016 9.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the copies of assets and liabilities statement from March 2004 to March 2012 that was submitted to the regional office, Nizamabad, confidential reports from the year 2009, income tax form 16A for the year 2012- 13 along with the newspaper bill, cleansing material allowance and casual labour charges 7 paid to him during the suspension period from 7.10.2009 to 22.5.2013 from Kamareddy branch.
9.2 The CPIO denied the information in view of repetitive applications. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who also upheld the CPIO's decision as the appellant had made more than 200 RTI applications. Aggrieved with the response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
9.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they will make one more attempt to trace the statement of his assets and liabilities and confidential reports from 2004 to 2012 and provide, if available. As regards form 16A and newspaper bills, cleansing material and causal labour charges, they shall be providing the same as it is available in the system.
9.4 In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide information point 3 and 4 of the RTI application within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. As regards the assets and liabilities and the ACRs of the official, the Commission directs the CPIO to make one more attempt to trace the documents sought and provide the copies/outcome, as the case may be, to the appellant within one month of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
10. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000913 RTI application : 18.08.2015 CPIO's reply : 18.06.2015 First appeal : 20.06.2015 FAA's order : 24.07.2015 Second appeal : 30.03.2016 10.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the list of borrowers with account numbers to whose near relatives he had sanctioned loans without tenancy certificates.
10.2 The CPIO denied the information as it came within the purview of the personal information disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the individual. The appellant thereafter approached the first appellate authority who held that the appellant had gone to the court and the matter was sub judice. The correctness or otherwise of the proceedings would be decided by the High Court and also that no public interest was involved in the matter. Dissatisfied, the appeal came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for information.
10.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated that the appellant was seeking personal information of third parties and they hold the account information, etc. relating to their customers in confidence. Besides, this was also third party information. No larger public interest was involved in the matter. Therefore, they had denied the information about the account numbers of the third parties.
810.4 The Commission tends to agree with the respondents that the bank has to maintain the secrecy of its customers' personal information. Moreover, the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the matter. The Commission, therefore, upholds the CPIO/FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.
11. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000956 RTI application : 18.11.2015 CPIO's reply : 17.12.2015 First appeal : 22.12.2015 FAA's order : 30.01.2016 Second appeal : 19.03.2016 11.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while stating that he was dismissed from service on 22.5.2013, sought a copy of the orders of the reviewing authority, the Chairman & Managing Director of the State Bank of Hyderabad.
11.2 The CPIO informed the appellant that it was not CPIO's duty to get the information from other offices to provide it to him. The FAA, who had been approached, held that the information sought by the appellant was vague as he had not mentioned the date or request numbers of the orders passed by the reviewing authority. The appellant, thereafter, came in appeal before the Commission.
11.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant vide his letter dated 19.7.2016 stated that he was dismissed by the bank and as per the disciplinary proceedings in the bank; the reviewing authority passes the order finally and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide him the information. On the Commission questioning the respondents, whether the ex-official's appeal relating to dismissal had been decided, the respondents stated that the same had been rejected. The respondents added that there was no record with respect to any review by the Chairman & Managing Director available in their branch.
11.4 In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not find any reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
12. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001004 RTI application : 08.01.2016 CPIO's reply : 08.02.2016 First appeal : 12.02.2016 FAA's order : --
Second appeal : 26.03.2016 12.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning certain account numbers,
sought the name/designation of the authority who identified irregularities in the 47 accounts 9 mentioned in his RTI application, nature of irregularities and the documentary evidence establishing the irregularities in the accounts in question.
12.2 The CPIO denied information on the ground of repetitive RTI applications. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority. Having received no information the appellant approached the Commission.
12.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the FAA had duly adjudicated upon the RTI application vide his order 24.3.2016 and upheld the order of the CPIO. They added that the documentary evidence of the charges and the nature of irregularities against the appellant had been already provided to him during disciplinary proceedings. They stated that a special audit was conducted and the information relating to the official conducting the audit was personal information which could not be provided.
12.4 The Commission observes that the CPIO can provide the designation only of the official who conducted the audit and directs him to furnish to the appellant within one week of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
13. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001005 RTI application : 31.12.2015 CPIO's reply : --
First appeal : 17.02.2016 FAA's order : -- Second appeal : 26.03.2016
13.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information on the action taken by the Zonal Office, Nizamabad and the regional office, Nizamabad from 2009 to 2011 and thereafter mentioning that he had submitted the copies of form 6A, 6C that were obtained after the special audit of Reddypet branch for the accounts listed in the fraud monitoring report and in the charge sheet served to him.
13.2 Not having received the reply from the CPIO and the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to furnish the information to him 13.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had already provided the response to the appeal vide CPIO's letter dated 18.2.2016 as the appellant had sent the RTI application to the Zonal Office instead of the CPIO.
13.4 The Commission finds that the first appeal made to the FAA remains unadjudicated. The Commission therefore remands the matter to the FAA to provide a reasoned and speaking order on the first appeal within one month of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
1014. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001051 RTI application : 02.12.2015 CPIO's reply : 13.01.2016 First appeal : 21.01.2016 FAA's order : 06.02.2016 Second appeal : 02.05.2016 14.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while expressing his grievance regarding the statement given by him during the inquiry proceeding having been disregarded by the inquiring authority, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while giving reports/orders/ recommendations, sought "the significance, importance of deposition by the charge sheeted officer during inquiry proceedings" and the related papers from the manual on disciplinary and vigilance proceeding in the bank.
14.2 The CPIO denied information in view of the repetitive applications and also as no public interest was involved. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who upheld the CPIO's decision. The appellant came in appeal before the Commission thereafter reiterating his demand for information.
14.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant was not seeking any information. Therefore, their denial to provide any information.
14.4 On hearing the respondents and perusing the documents, the Commission finds that the appellant is seeking the opinion of the CPIO and the FAA which does not qualify to be information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the respondents can only provide the information that is existing and available. They submitted that they had already provided the service regulations. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
15. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001221 RTI application : 09.02.2016 CPIO's reply : --
First appeal : 28.03.2016 FAA's order : -- Second appeal : 07.05.2016
15.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the date of the receipt of RDO inquiry report dated 31.12.2009 at regional office, Nizamabad.
15.2 The appellant had not received any response from the CPIO/FAA. Therefore, he came in appeal before the Commission.
1115.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had already responded to the RTI application on 18.2.2016 mentioning that the appellant had been making repetitive applications and no public interest was involved in the matter. the FAA also upheld the CPIO's decision vide his order dated 15.5.2016.
15.4 The Commission finds that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had provided the information sought to the appellant. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available record, therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the date of receipt of the inquiry report in regional office, Nizamabad along with supporting documents, as available, within three weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
16. No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001237 RTI application : 27.01.2016 CPIO's reply : 07.04.2016 First appeal : 03.05.2016 FAA's order : 18.05.2016 Second appeal : 25.05.2016 16.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning page 4/9 of the special audit report dated 29.7.2009, sought to know the names of the so called middlemen, name of the borrower, account number alleged to have been written by the so called middlemen and the documentary evidence establishing the allegation that the documents were written by the so called middlemen in view of the auditors' report that a few documents were allowed to be written by the middlemen.
16.2 The CPIO denied information on the first two points regarding the names of the so called middlemen, the name of the borrower, account number, etc. as the audit report involved commercial confidence and the disclosure was exempt u/s 8(1)(d) and on the rest of the points, the CPIO held that the information sought to be hypothetical and, therefore, not within the purview of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his demand for information and stating that the denial of information was incorrect.
16.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated they had provided information/replies to a number of RTI applications and in this case the information being sought was held by them under 8(1)(d) involving commercial confidence. It was also the personal information of the account holders/borrowers, therefore, they could not provide such information to the appellant. They also stated that as regards the evidence available, such matters had been dealt in detail during disciplinary proceedings where the appellant was provided access to the relevant information.
16.4 In view of the above, the Commission does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
1216.5 The respondents stated that ever since the appellant's dismissal from service, he had made over 200 RTI applications. While it had been their sincere desire and attempt to try to provide him the information sought, the appellant's barrage of RTI application remained unabated. They added that they had, in response to numerous RTI application, provided information on a host of subjects/issues and that the appellant was already in possession of a number of documents as he quoted the dates, paras, reference nos. of these while seeking information/copies of such letters. Moreover, the appellant had, vide his letter dated 26.5.2015, thanked the AGM/CPIO and staff of Regional Office for furnishing him the requested information during the last one year and assured that there will not be any further RTI applications from him in near future but from the very next day onwards he had made eight (8) more RTI applications since then. They further stated that the Commission in the case of Manjeet Singh Bal vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Saket), New Delhi dated 9.7.2014, has held that "The universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res judicata', which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity of obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself. He cannot file another application for a bit or piece which he forgot to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that subject matter, in the first ever available opportunity. Even if he does not, it is presumed by law that he asked for that and was refused after due trial. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objectives of Right to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought from same or different public authorities to be stopped."
16.6 Further, the Commission in decision dated 17.1.2012 observed that "The Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent, public authority as well as the Commission is being spent merely going through the motions prescribed under the RTI Act again and again to obtain similar information ......... At this juncture, the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of one individual."
16.7 In the present case, the appellant has made over 200 RTI applications which have been responded to by the respondent authority spending their valuable resources and time meant to serve the public to satisfy the ever increasing desire of the appellant for seeking various information/documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive 13 information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and 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 non- productive 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, tranquility 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 a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
16.8 In view of the foregoing, the Commission advises the appellant not to indulge in making repetitive and frivolous RTI applications and also learn to honour his own commitment in this regard.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy Secy & Dy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027 Address of the parties:
Shri S. Venkatachalam, H. No. 3-1-138, Ayyappanagar, Post: Kamareddy-503111. Dist. Nizamabad (Telengana) 14 The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office Nizamabad, 3rd Floor, Rukimini Chambers, Vinayak Nagar, Nizamabad-503003.
The First Appellate Authority General Manager (Treasury) State Bank of Hyderabad, 1st Floor, Prabhat Towers, Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad-500001.15