Central Information Commission
Brucelee X vs State Bank Of India on 2 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/607626
Brucelee X .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank
Of India, Regional Business office,
1st floor, Neela South Street,
Nagappattinam-611001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/07/2023
Date of Decision : 31/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 30/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 04/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2021 seeking the following information:1
"I worked with State Bank of Mysore as Probationary Officer from 03.07.2012 till 22.02.2018. My last worked branch is SBI Koothanallur (02225) as Deputy Manager. My PF id is 6243436.
I received a letter from SBI Koothanallur on 30.07.2020 regarding my USROMD Advance pending Rs.1,53,000/-. I replied detailed in a letter dated 11.08.2020 about the rent payment pending for me by the bank with all the necessary bills and copies of previously sent bills. And I requested to adjust the pending rent and maintenance amount payable to me Rs. 2,54,500/- with the actual USROMD Rs.1,50,000/- and pay me the remaining amount Rs.1,04,500/- as soon as possible.
I added the mentioned amount is erroneously said as Rs.1,53,000/- and the USROMD Advance amount is Rs.1,50,000/- only. I did not receive any reply for that request letter. I have sent a reminder letter after 3 months dated 01.12.2020 mentioning the same. Till now I have not received any reply to those letters and no action has been taken on that.
I would like to know the progress of my request letter and the possible date of adjustment of the said amounts by the bank. I have attached the scanned copy of the reminder letter sent on 01.12.2020 with acknowledgements received by me."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 30.09.2021 stating as under:
"The query is in nature of seeking Opinion from the CPIO which does not fall within the purview of 'information' as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.10.2021. FAA's order, dated 10.11.2021, has directed the CPIO to provide the information in respect of the first part of the query within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.2
Respondent: K Bharathi, Chief Manager (Operations) present through Video- Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent. The Appellant further raised his grievance related to non-payment of house rent and maintenance.
The Respondent submitted that ab-initio vide their letter dated 30.09.2021, they have informed the Appellant that the queries of the Appellant do not fall under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, after the directions given by the FAA vide letter dated 10.11.2021, the CPIO provided a revised reply to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter vide its letter dated 14.12.2021.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds that the dissatisfaction of the Appellant with the reply provided by the CPIO is bereft of merit as the RTI Application merely seeks for clarifications and answers to interrogative queries. It appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant 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 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 3 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 washeld 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 "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:4
"..... 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 Similarly, 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:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 5 "20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
The Appellant is advised to approach appropriate administrative forum in order to redress his grievance.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6