Central Information Commission
Premraj vs Indian Overseas Bank on 30 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/623945 +
CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/622518 +
CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/620192 +
CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/619155
Premraj ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Overseas Bank,
Chennai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint(s):
Sl. Complaint Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. No. RTI CPIO's First FAA's Complaint
Application Reply Appeal Order
1. 623945 15.03.2023 13.04.2023 17.04.2023 15.05.2023 16.05.2023
2. 622518 22.02.2023 24.03.2023 24.03.2023 20.04.2023 07.05.2023
3. 620192 13.03.2023 12.04.2023 14.04.2023 Not on 21.04.2023
record
4. 619155 22.02.2023 24.03.2023 Not on Not on 16.04.2023
record record
Note: The above referred cases have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the
same subject matter and similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 19.07.2024
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
Page 1 of 13
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SMT. ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Complaint No.: CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/623945
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 15.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"The Maduravoyal branch of Indian Overseas Bank has issued a letter on 13.3.2023 regarding the PMEGP loan. (Please refer to the attached document.) The second point.
The second point mentioned in the letter is as follows.
The applicant is not able to provide rental agreement of his present residence. The applicant is native of Theni which is far from branch and difficult for follow up. In connection with this, I have filed this RTI application to seek information.
(i) I have my Aadhar card and Indian Overseas Bank SB account passbook proofs are at my present residence address. However, even after submitting these documents, Is it mandatory to submit a copy of the Rental Agreement as Proof of residence in order to become eligible for a loan under the PMEGP scheme?
I kindly request you to provide a copy of any RBI Circulars or other relevant documents pertaining to this requirement.
(ii) I have my Aadhar card and Indian Overseas Bank SB account passbook proofs are at my present residence address. However, even after submitting these documents, Is it mandatory to submit a copy of the Rental Agreement as Proof of residence in order to become eligible for a loan under the PMEGP scheme?
Page 2 of 13I kindly request you to provide a copy of any Indian Overseas Bank Circulars or other relevant documents pertaining to this requirement."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Before sanctioning the loan Branch Official to conduct due diligence and verify applicant's residence address as per KYC documents given by the applicant. If applicant is not having his own place for running his business, the applicant has to provide a copy of rent/lease agreement of the place where he has to setup his/her business."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.04.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO 1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 16.05.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"(i) I request the recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against CPIO R Mahalakshmi, who failed to provide a reply within the 30-day time limit. (ii) I kindly request the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against CPIO R Mahalakshmi, who knowingly uploaded a reply letter dated 17.04.2023, time 2:38 pm, beyond the prescribed time limit of 30 days. (iii) I request the recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against CPIO R Mahalakshmi, who knowingly uploaded an RTI reply dated 17.04.2023, time 2:38 pm, after the applicant had already filed the First Appeal on 17.04.2023, time 1.03 pm. (iv) I request the recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against FAA R Giridharan, who knowingly justifies the delay of the CPIO in his reply letter dated 15.05.2023, time 6.44 pm. xxx In my RTI application, I sought information regarding my Proof of Residence, but the CPIO provided information related to Unit Address Proof instead. Prayers for Complaint No 4 (i) I request the recommendation of disciplinary proceedings against CPIO R Mahalakshmi, who is knowingly provided irrelevant information in their reply Page 3 of 13 letter. (ii) I request the recommendation to provide the relevant information on the Proof of Residence not on Proof of Unit Address. Complaint No 5 (against CPIO R Mahalakshmi) In my RTI application, I sought information regarding RBI circulars and IOB circulars. The CPIO has failed to provide the relevant RBI, IOB circulars, if available.
Alternatively, the CPIO should explicitly mention if no such RBI or IOB circulars are available..."
Complaint No.: CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/622518
2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please let me know the total number of days between 12.10.2022 and 25.02.2023 during which no actions were taken by the IOB maduravoyal branch on my PMEGP loan dated 12.10.2022.
(ii) Please let me know the total number of days between 12.10.2022 and 25.02.2023 during which no actions were taken by the IOB Regional Office on my PMEGP loan dated 12.10.2022.
(iii) Please let me know the Name, Designation and office address of the authority who is updated this "UNDER PROCESS AT BRANCH" status on 03.01.2023 for the SPGRS complaint with the reference number 230019017.
(iv) Please provide me with the "List of Documents" that the applicant submitted at Maduravoyal Branch for the period between 12.10.2022 and 25.02.2023 regarding the PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12.10.2022.
(v) If my PMEGP loan application with number DITN226976-11160171, dated 12/10/2022, was forwarded from Maduravoyal branch to your Regional office, could you Please let me know the date it was forwarded..." etc. 2.1. Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 24.03.2023.Page 4 of 13
2.2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point No. 1, 2, 17, 18: You have not sought information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. You are seeking clarification, opinion, questioning and requesting CPIO to elicit her view and identify the rule or provision which would fit to the description. It is not coming under the purview of RTI Act, 2005.
Point 3: Information sought for is information of staff member of our Bank. The disclosure of personal information of an employee is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The bank staff discharged their duties in their respective official capacity only.
Point 4, 10: You are the custodian of this information.
Point 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16: Information sought for is not readily available and not available in the form as sought by you and culling out of information would disproportionately divert the resources of public authority and denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO can provide only that information which is available and existing with public authority Under RTI Act, 2005.
Point No. 11, 12: Not applicable."
2.3. The FAA vide order dated 20.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO 2.4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 07.05.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"Despite the 30-day time limit, CPIO R Mahalakshmi did not respond to my RTI application, leading me to file the First Appeal on 24.03.2023. However, on the 35th day, which was 28.03.2023, the CPIO finally responded. The First Appellate Authority, R Giridharan who is knowingly justifies the CPIO's delay in his reply letter dated 20.04.2023 and who provided conflicting information in their reply..."Page 5 of 13
Complaint No.: CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/620192
3. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.03.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please find the PDF attachment, your email dated 13.03.2023 stating that PMEGP application no DITN226976 11160171 submitted on 12.10.2022 is rejected by the competent authority.
Please let me know the Competent Authority's a) Name, b) Designation c) Office Address d) Email ID e) office contact numbers as mentioned in the Email.
(ii) As per the attachment the Email was sent by the CHIEF MANAGER, ADVANCES DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE - VELLORE, Please let me know the Chief Managers Name, Full office address, Email ID, and office contact number."
3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.04.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "Competent Authority Designation- Chief Regional Manager, Office Address-1st Floor, No: 3, 10th East Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore - 632 006, Office Telephone: 0416-2243845, Email [email protected]
(ii) Office Address- 1st Floor, No: 3, 10th East Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore 632006. Office Telephone: 0416 [email protected]. 2243845, Email ID-
Further, information sought for is name of employee is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The bank staff discharged their duties in their respective official capacity only and disclosure of information of employee to applicant will cause unwarranted invasion in their privacy."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 14.04.2023. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 21.04.2023 stating inter alia as under:
Page 6 of 13"On item no 1, I requested the Basic information and it was very direct. that is i requested the Competent authority's name, But the CPIO R Mahalakshmi trickily ignored the name of the Competent Authority.
On item no 2, Again I requested the Basic information and it was very direct. that is I requested the Chief Managers name, But the CPIO R Mahalakshmi trickily ignored the name of the Competent Authority.
Please impose disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO R Mahalakshmi who has given incomplete information in an intentional manner..."
Complaint No.: CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/619155
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Please let me know the Action taken on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank. Also please let me know the relevant Authority Name and Designation and Office address of the authority who has taken necessary actions on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank.
(ii) Please let me know the Action taken on 13.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank. Also please let me know the relevant Authority Name and Designation and Office address of the authority who has taken necessary actions on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank.
(iii) Please let me know the Action taken on 14.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank. Also please let me know the relevant Authority Name and Page 7 of 13 Designation and Office address of the authority who has taken necessary actions on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank.
(iv) Please let me know the Action taken on 15.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank. Also please let me know the relevant Authority Name and Designation and Office address of the authority who has taken necessary actions on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank.
(v) Please let me know the Action taken on 16.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank. Also please let me know the relevant Authority Name and Designation and Office address of the authority who has taken necessary actions on 12.10.2022 for my PMEGP loan DITN226976-11160171 dated 12/10/2022 application by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank..."
4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Your loan application No. DITN226976-11160171 dated 12.10.2022 received by the Branch on 12.10.2022 was rejected after field visit and verification, branch was not satisfied with the credentials, experience and viability of the project and the same was communicated to you by our Branch vide letter dated 13.03.2023.
Moreover, you have not sought information as defined under section 2(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. You are seeking clarification, opinion, questioning and requesting CPIO to elicit her view and identify the rule or provision which would fit to the description. It is not coming under the purview of RTI Act. 2005."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 16.04.2023 stating as under:
Page 8 of 13"1) Kindly direct the CPIO to provide a relevant Day-by-Day action taken on my PMEGP loan application DITN226976 11160171 dated 12/10/2022 by the Maduravoyal Branch, Indian Overseas Bank.
2) Please recommend disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO who has intentionally ignored to provide the requested information."
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Complainant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Mahalakshmi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Complainant argued on the lines of the grounds of complaint reproduced above in the cases under reference, respectively, primarily harping on the argument that the information as desired has not been provided by the CPIO in either of these cases.
7. The Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the instant RTI Application(s) and in Complaint No. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/623945, it was submitted that the delay pointed out by the Complainant was not deliberate as there was a minor delay in uploading the reply to the online portal due to some intervening holidays. Similarly, in Complaint No. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/619155, the CPIO clarified that the Complainant was informed about the action taken/final outcome and there is no such information of day-to-day action carried out on the loan application and as such due diligence carried out on a daily basis cannot be explained in a written manner.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the grounds of the complaint in each of the cases under reference appear to be rather labored and bereft of merit as the information provided by the CPIO adequately suffices the largely clarificatory nature of the RTI queries. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid Page 9 of 13 being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....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 Page 10 of 13 "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...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the 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. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
9. Similarly, as for the deliberate/malafide delay in providing the reply as alleged by the Complainant in two of the cases under reference or the allegation of uploading a backdated reply, the Commission does not find any substance in these allegations based on the strength of the material on record.
Page 11 of 1310. The Complaint(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 29.07.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ("रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26180514 (०११-२६१८०५१८) Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Overseas Bank, AGM & CPIO, RTI Cell, Law Department, Central Office: Chennai, P. B. No.-3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600002
2. Premraj Page 12 of 13 Annexure of Complaints Sl. No. Complaint No.
1. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/623945
2. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/622518
3. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/620192
4. CIC/IOVBK/C/2023/619155 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)