Central Information Commission
Mrkumar Bhant Garhwal vs Central Bank on 21 July, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 21st July 2016
Date of decision : 21st July 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kumar Kant Garhwal,
S/o. Shri Rajendra Kumar Garhwal,
Eklehra No4, Ward No. 14, Shiva Nagar,
POEklehra, TehsilParasia,
DisttChhindwara, M.P.480449
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Central Bank of India
Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point,
Mumbai 400021
RTI Application filed on : 03/11/2014
CPIO replied on : 29/12/2014
First Appeal filed on : 20/01/2015
First Appellate Authority order on : __
2nd Appeal received on : 09/03/2015
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Chhindwara.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri B. R. Sankar, DGM and CPIO was present at
the NIC Studio, Mumbai.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
Information sought
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on twenty five points regarding cancellation of the selection process of Sweeper cum Subordinate employees by the Board of Directors in the year 201213 and related issues. The CPIO reply The CPIO denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) and (g) of the RTI Act. Grounds of the First Appeal No information was received by him.
Order of the First Appellate Authority No order passed.
Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents.
Relevant facts emerging during the Hearing, Discussion and Decision The Appellant stated that the entire information sought by him has been withheld. He was informed by us that he had sought elaborate information on 25 points. This would File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798 be voluminous. Therefore, he could either inspect all the records at the office of the Respondents in Mumbai or he should indicate five or six important points on which he needs information, so that the Respondents could be directed to provide such information as could be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Appellant preferred the second option and mentioned point Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 and 20 of his RTI application. The Respondents stated that the matter concerning the selection process, in the context of which information has been sought, is pending before the High Courts of Guwahati and Patna and the Assistant Labour Commissioner at Bhopal. Therefore, the information cannot be provided. However, in response to our query, they stated that no court of law or tribunal has expressly forbidden disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. They also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012).
2. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and see no ground for the Respondents to deny the entire information sought by the Appellant. The Supreme Court judgment, cited by the Respondents, considered disclosure of names and addresses of members of an Interview Board and is not germane to this case. The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought at point Nos. 6 and 8 of the RTI application dated 3.11.2014. The query at point No.10 is in the nature of seeking an explanation from the File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798 Respondents and, therefore, does not qualify as information as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The information sought at point No.12 is based on the assumption that certain candidates were declared as overage wrongly and the Appellant enquired as to when they would be given appointment. In our view, the CPIO is required to give only such information as is available on record. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to check from the records whether any candidates were declared overage wrongly and whether there is any indication of their being given an appointment in future and inform the Appellant accordingly. If, however, the information sought at this point is not available on record, the CPIO should state so in writing. Regarding point No.18, the CPIO is directed to convey to the Appellant a gist of the reasons because of which investigation, if any, was necessary. The information sought at point 20 is regarding all the expenses incurred in connection with the selection process. The Respondents stated that they do not maintain compiled information on the above and we would not like to burden them with the collection of this information, thereby diverting their resources from their day to day work.
3. The CPIO should comply with our directives in the preceding paragraph, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. Such information, as is provided, should be provided free of charge.
4. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000798