Central Information Commission
Sadashiv Dattatray Labde vs Reserve Bank Of India on 12 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2022/153455
Sadashiv Dattatray Labde ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.06.2022 FA : 29.08.2022 SA : 12.11.2022
CPIO : 29.07.2022 FAO : 11.10.2022 Hearing : 06.03.2024
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:
a) "I request you to provide us the center Wise information on number of applications received from pension optees for extension of time beyond due date i. e, December 14, 2020, for payment of bank contribution etc. under the pension option scheme and considered by the bank with their names, category, and office noting.
b) Center wise office noting on application made by pension optees for extensions of payment beyond due date i.e.., December 14, 2020, for payment of bank contribution Page 1 of 4 etc. under the scheme and rejected by the bank along with their name, category, and office noting on their application, if any.
c) I request you to give us the inspection of record of payments made by pension optee after due date."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"a) - None of the application received from pension optees for extension of time beyond due date for payment of bank contribution etc. under the pension option scheme was considered by HRMD, CO.
b) - Information sought is personal information and exempted under section 8 (1)
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
c) - Refer to the reply for query 1."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2022. The FAA vide order dated 11.10.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.11.2022.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Prashant Ketkar, Manager & Rep. of CPIO along with Rohan Yadav, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that in the grounds of the second appeal, the Appellant has mentioned that he has taken up this matter on behalf of Shilwant K Choudhari. Now, the instant matter is identical to the Second Appeal filed by Shilwant K Choudhari vide File No. CIC/RBIND/A/2022/154949, based on an identical RTI Application, which was Page 2 of 4 heard and decided on 05.03.2024, therefore, the Commission does not find any reason to adjudicate separately on the merits of the instant case. In other words, the following decision in Shilwant K Choudhari's case squarely applies to the instant case:
"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the concededly the Appellant has overstretched his request for information at the Second Appeal stage. It is also pertinent to note that the Appellant is challenging the merits of the information provided to him and is primarily harping on redressal of a grievance, which is not the mandate of RTI Act. In the facts of the instant case, the Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
xxx Similarly, the Appellant is insisting on information related to other pensioners to be provided to him, which in addition to being a request for voluminous information is also not permissible to be disclosed in view of the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act....
xxx As regards the submission of the CPIO urging that the records sought for by the Appellant are spread across different regional offices and ought to be collated, the Appellant shall note that the Apex Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] has observed that:
xxx Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance before the appropriate forum..."
8. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 11.03.2024
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, (HRMD), Ria Division, Central Office, 21st Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
2. Sadashiv Dattatray Labde Page 4 of 4