CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000188/17600
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000188
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant
:
Mr. Amit Bhandari,
Flat 54 Building Lotus Parmar Garden
Wanowrie Pune-4 11040
Maharashtra
Respondent
:
Public Information Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank
Central Office Post Box No. 3765,
763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600002
RTI application filed on
PIO replied on
First Appeal filed on
First Appellate Authority order of
Second Appeal received on
:
:
:
:
:
17-05-2010, 24-08-2010 & 03-09-2010
24-05-2010, 23-09-2010,
19-07-2011
22-08-2011
21-11-2011
Information sought: The appellant filed a second appeal to the Commission he enclosed his
three RTI application dt. 17-05-2010, 24-08-2010 & 03-09-2010 for seeking information.
1.
The appellant had asked in his RTI application dt. 17-05-2010 regarding the following
points as under:By means of this letter, I seek further information about Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sethi, my FatherIn-Law and a Senior Manager with the Janpath branch of Indian Overseas Bank in New Delhi. For the
purpose of the present query, I reiterate that Sb. Sethi had married his elder daughter, Deeksha, to me
on 27 June, 2009. (Annexure-B).
Through the complaint dated 16 October, 2009 (Annexure-C) Sh. Sethi is claiming from me a sum of
Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on account of lodging for his friends and relatives. It must be
noted that the lodging had been provided by Sh. Sethi to his friends and relatives in the bank flats lying
vacant at the time of the marriage.
I wish to know1.
Is the bank aware of Sh. Sethi’s utilization of several bank properties for his personal use
before, during and after the marriage of his daughter?
2.
Is the utilization of bank properties for personal use permissible under the rules applicable to
Sh. Sethi as an employee of the bank?
3.
Whether the bank had charged Sh. Sethi for letting him utilize bank’s properties or whether
they were allowed to him free of cost?
The PIO reply:
“Petitions under RTI Act cannot address any matters involving redressal of grievances or
settlement of issues or resolve personal disputes and only Information’ as defined under Sec 2(f) is
furnished to the applicants. Also please be advised furnishing reasons, explanations for the actions of
the Employee in his individual capacity does not fall under the purview of RTI Act 2005. Further,
CPIO has no purview to express his views or opinion and comment on the allegations leveled by you
against one Employee Sri. Rarnesh Kumar Sethi,
In this regard, your kind attention is invited to CIC Case No CIC/AT/A/2006/00045 dated 21 .
04.2006. on the appeal of Dr D V Rao has clearly held that it is not open to an appellant to ask, in the
guise of seeking information, questions to the public authorities about the nature and quality of their
actions. The RTI Act Does not cast on the public authority any obligation to answer queries, as in your
case, in which you formulate query to elicit answers to your questions with prefixes such as, why,
what, when and whether. Your right extends only to seeking information as defined in Sec 2(f) either
by pinpointing the file, document, paper or record etc or by mentioning the type of information as may
be available with the specified public authority.
Further, you are involved in an exercise of including the Public Authority in a personal dispute
between you and the employee of the Public Authority.
The issues are reported disputed and you are required to use other forums for settlement of the
issue and not by invoking the provisions under RTI Act 2005.
2.
The appellant had asked in his RTI application dt. 24-08-2010 regarding the following
points as under:Please provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the sole intention to
validate if the incidence of leave confirmed to the Leave Rules, then prevalent and applicable to him as
an employee of the bank.
1.
Was the bank aware of his absence from duty on Thursday the 17th and Friday the 18th of
June, 2010 and whether such absence was authorized or unauthorized?
2.
Where the leave was granted, furnish from the available records, a certified copy of the order
showing the date of commencement of leave and the date on which the employee was to
resume duty.
3.
Provide an extract of the Absentee Register that duly records his absence from work.
4.
Had he intimated, before proceeding on leave, his address while on leave to the competent
authority?
3.
The appellant had asked in his RTI application dt. 03-09-2010 regarding the following
points as under:“My query pertains to receipts that were issued by your bank for certain products sold by your
bank. Please certify the enclosed receipts issued by your bank to be true and correct. Accordingly,
please furnish me the certified copies of the same and let me know the Number of pages and cost per
page that I need to remit in order to obtain the certified copies.
In the event of refusal, provide adequate reasons for doing so”.
(The PIO provided reply to the appellant RTI Applications dt. 24-08-2010 & 03-09-2010 on 2309-2010)
The PIO reply:
“We refer your letter dated 24.08.2010 received by us on 27.08.2010, seeking information on
Official and personal details of one Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi, in personal vendatta and to settle
personal scores with the Employee in respect of pending Criminal case before judicial forum, under
RTI Act 2005. We reply as under:
In this regard, we invite your earlier petition dated 30.04.2010 as detailed below, in which you
had earlier sought information in respect of personal and official details of Employee Sri.Ramesh
Kumar Sethi and related details. CPIO duly disposed your petition vide letter dated 20.05.2010.
Further the first appeal filed by you vide petition dated 30.05.2010 was disposed by Appellate
authority on 01 .07.2010. The details are furnished hereunder:
Information Sought
PIO reply
1. Report of gifts, Case and The information sought by you in the form of report of gifts,
Jewellery received by Sh cash and Jewellery of the employee Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi
Ramesh Kumar Sethi.
does not exists with the Employer in the form sought by you. As
per IOB Officer Employees’ (Conduct)Regulations 1976 every
officer employee is required to submit the report on Movable
and Immovable assets and Valuable Property only in his name or
in the name of family members as o 31st March of every
financial year. The details are available to the Authority in sealed
cover and is confidential. Therefore the details are exempted
under Sec 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. Further the disclosure of the asset
details of the Employee of Public Authority would endanger the
life or physical safety of any person or assistance given in
confidence for law enforcement or security purposes and attracts
exemption under Sec 8(1)(g) of RTI Act 2005. Also please be
advised as per Sec 6(2) of RTI Act 2005, wherein no reason is
required by CPIO to furnish the information and can dispose the
RTI petitions as per the provisions of the Act only. Further, since
the issues are disputed and pending investigation before judicial
forums, It would be improper for the CPIO to provide
information on such issues. As has been decided by Hon’ble CIC
on such matters, Petitioners are requested to secure the same
through respective judicial forums only and not by invoking
provisions under RTI Act 2005.
2. Report on Dowry given by Sh Public Authority is not the custodian of the information sought
Ramesh Kumar Sethi for the by you and therefore does not coming under the purview of Sec.
marriage his daughter Mrs 2(j) of RTI Act,2005.
Deeksha Bhandari.
3. Report on whether the cost of Does not arise in view of above 2. Further RTI Act, does not
all items given in dowry require the Public Information Officer to deduce some
reconciles with is appropriate conclusion from the material and supply the conclusion from the
and in proportion to Shri. material so deduced to the applicant. PlO is only required to
Ramesh Kumar Sethi’s known supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the Public Authority
source of income as an and is not required to research or perform interpretations on
employee of IOB
behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and
then
supply
to
him.
Also
furnishing
of
advice/opinion/clarification/ confirmation/Explanation is also
not covered within the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 and expressing
views or opinions are beyond the scope and duties of CPIO.
Subsequently you have filed another petition dated 24.08.2010 received by us on 27.08.2010
seeking the following official and personal details of Staff memer Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi for settling
personal scores, in guise of seeking information, under RTI Act 2005:
1.
Was the Bank aware of his absence form duty on Thursday the 17th and Friday the 18th of
June 2010 and whether such absence was authorized or unauthorized?
2.
Where the leave was granted, furnish from the available records, a certified copy of the order
showing the date of Commencement of leave and date on which the employee was to resume
duty.
3.
Provide an extract of the Absentee Register that duly records his absence from work.
4.
Had he intimate, before proceeding on leave, his address while on leave to the competent
authority?
CPIO vide letter dated replied as below:
You information request on personal and official details of staff member Sri.Ramesh Kumar
Sethi, in the present circumstances of settling personal scores for promotion of your personal interest
and no ostensible relations to any public interest or public activity, formed the personal information of
others and therefore exempted for disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Please be advised under
provisions of RTI Act, a requester is expected to seek information pertaining to public activity that
may have bearing on service delivery of the Public authority and not in the pretext of settling personal
scores as held by CIC consistently in several decisions.
In this regard, Central information Commission held in several cases that” RTI Act is
implemented with the intention to have an informed citizenry and transparency for a Democratic
Republic, therefore, the beneficial provisions of the Act ought not be used for settling personal scores,
in matters of family disputes. Unfortunately, the provisions of RU Act are being increasingly mis-used
by a large number of persons for settling personal and family disputes, including divorce and claim of
maintenance related cases, etc., The information asked for relate to personal and official details of an
employee of the Public authority, the disclosure of which would largely be in the interest of the
Petitioner. Since the case pertains to a dispute between the two parties, the concerned parties should
seek legal remedy in the matter, rather than raising issues before the authorities in the garb of seeking
information. Under the provisions of the Act, a requester is expected to seek information pertaining to
public activity that may have bearing on service delivery of the Public Authority”
Also please be advised as per Sec 7 of RTI act 2005 replies to queries under RTI Act 2005
would be provided within 48 hours, in cases where the information sought for concerns the life or
liberty of a person. Such requests are usually seen for information relating to Hospitals doctors 1
Courts! Police in matters involving arrest or imprisonment etc., Therefore ,it is observed that your
information request do not concern the life or liberty wherein legal remedy is available and therefore
would be dealt with in normal course.
Now, you have filed another RTI petition dated 03.09.2010 received by us on 3.9.2010
enclosing therewith some Bank documents as enclosed and asked for certification of such documents
without specifying Branch Name, Name of the customer, Nature of the document etc., in guise of
seeking information.
Your request in the form of issuing Certification for the documents submitted by you does not
fall under Sec 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 and beyond the scope and duties of CPIO. As per the provisions of
RTI Act 2005, you are entitled only for the ‘Information” which means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, & mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, etc held in
document form or electronic form. It does not include any service, which includes certification,
verification, assurances etc., CPIO can only coordinate a document held by the Authority for onward
transmission to the petitioner subject to his entitled as public document or the petitioner’s own account
details.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
(FAA was passed an one order, regarding the appellant’s Three RTI Applications)
“(I) originally, the Appellant Sri.Amit Bharidari has sought the information on personal details
of one Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi. under Right to Information Act 2005.
1.
Report of Gifts, Cash and jewellery received by Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi.
2.
Report on Dowry given by Shri Ramesh Kumkar Sethi for the marriage of his daughter
Mrs.Deeksha Shandari,
3.
Report on whether the cost of aM items given in the dowry reconciles with is appropriate and
in proportion to Shri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi’s known source of income as an employee of lOB.
CPIO has disposed the petition vide decision dated 20.05.2010 as below:
1.
The information sought by you in the form of report of gifts, cash and Jewellery of the
employee Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi does not exists with the Employer in the form sought by you. As
per IOB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976 every officer employee is required to submit
the report on Movable and Immovable assets and Valuable Property only in his name or in the name of
family members as on 31st March of every financial year. The details are available to the Authority in
sealed cover and are confidential. Therefore the details are exempted under Sec 8(1) (e) of RTI Act.
Further the disclosure of the asset details of the Employee of Public Authority would endanger the life
or physical safety of any person or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security
purposes and attracts exemption under Sec 8(1)(g) of RU Act 2005. Also please be advised as per Sec
6(2) of RTI Act 2005, wherein no reason is required by CPIO to furnish the information and can
dispose the RU petitions as per the provisions of the Act only. Further, since the issues are disputed
and pending investigation before judicial forums, It would be improper for the CPIO to provide
information on such issues. As has been decided by Hon’ble CIC on such matters, Petitioners are
requested to secure the same through respective judicial forums only and not by invoking provisions
under RTI Act 2005
2.
Public Authority is not the custodian of the information sought by you and therefore does not
coming under the purview of Sec 2(j) of RTI Act.
3.
Does not arise in view of above 2. Further RTI Act, does not require the Public Information
Officer to deduce some conclusion from the material and supply the conclusion from the material so
deduced to the applicant. PlO is only required to supply the ‘material’ in the form as held by the Public
Authority and is not required to research or perform interpretations on behalf of the citizen to deduce
anything from the material and then supply to him, Also furnishing of advice/opinion/clarification/
confirmation/Explanation is also not covered within the ambit of RTI Act. 2005 and expressing views
or opinion are beyond the scope and duties of CPIO.
(ii).
Subsequently, the Appellant has filed another petition dated 24.08.2010 seeking information on
the personal details of Sh.Roniesh Kumar Sethi with no relations to public interest or activity as below.
1.
Was the Bank aware of his absence from duty on Thursday the 17th and Friday the 18th of
June 2010 and whether such absence was authorized or unauthorized?
2.
Where the leave was granted furnish from the available records, a certified copy of the order
showing the dote of commencement of leave and the date of commencement of leave and the
date on which the employee was to resume duty.
3.
Provide an extract of the absentee register that duly records his absence from work.
4.
Had he intimated, before proceeding on leave, his address while on Leave to the competent
authority?
The petition was disposed by CPIO vide letter dated 23.09.2010 as below:
“Your Information request on personal and official details of staff member Sri Ramesh Kumar
Sethi, In the present circumstances of settling personal scores for promotion of your personal interest
and no ostensible relations to any public interest or public activity, formed the personal information of
others and therefore exempted for disclosure under Sec 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. Please be advised under
provisions of RTI Act, a requester is expected to seek information pertaining to public activity that
may have bearing on service delivery of the Public authority and not In the pretext of settling personal
scores as held by CIC consistently In several decisions.
In this regard, Central Information Commission held in several cases that RTI Act is
implemented with the intention to have an informed citizenry and transparency for a Democratic
Republic, therefore, the beneficial provisions of the Act ought not to be used for settling personal
scores, in matters of family disputes. Unfortunately, the provisions of RTI Act are being increasingly
mis-used by a large number of persons for settling personal and family disputes, including divorce and
claim, of maintenance related cases, etc., The information asked for relate to personal and official
details of an employee of the Public authority, the disclosure of which would largely be in the interest
of the Petitioner. Since the case pertains to a dispute between the two parties, the concerned parties
should seek legal remedy in the matter, rather than raising issues before the authorities in the garb of
seeking Information. Under the provisions of the Act a requester is expected to seek Information
pertaining to public activity that may have bearing on service delivery of the Public Authority”
Also please be advised as per Sec 7 of RTI act 2005 replies to queries under RTI Act 2005
would be provided within 48 hours, in cases where the information sought for concerns the life or
liberty of a person. Such requests are usually seen for Information relating to Hospitals! Doctors I
Courts/ Police in matters Involving arrest or Imprisonment etc., Therefore it is observed that your
information request do not concern the life or liberty ,wherein legal remedy is available and therefore
would be dealt with in normal course.”
(iii). Subsequently, vide application dated 03.09.2010, the petitioner has preferred to enclose some
documents purportedly relates to some Branch and request for certification of such documents in the
guise of seeking information, under RTI Act 2005.
CPIO disposed the petition vide reply dated 23.09.2010 as below::“……………………………………………….Now, you have filed another RTI petition dated
03.09.2010 received by us on 3.9.2010 enclosing therewith some Bank documents as enclosed and
asked for certification of such documents without specifying Branch Name, Name of the customer,
Nature of the document etc., in guise of seeking information.
Your request in the form of issuing Certification for the documents submitted by you does not
fall under Sec 2(1) of RTI Act 2005 and beyond the scope and duties of CPIO. As per the provisions
of RU Act 2005, you are entitled only for the ‘information” which means any material in any form,
including records, documents, memos, e mails, opinions. Advices, press releases, circulars, etc held in
document form or electronic form. It does not include any service, which includes certification,
verification assurances etc., CPIO can only coordinate a document held by the Authority for onward
transmission to the petitioner subject to his entitled as public document or the petitioner’s own account
details,
III.
Aggrieved by the decision dated 20.05.2010 of the CPIO.as above, Sri Amit Bhandari had
preferred first appeal before First Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005. The Appeal was disposed
by First Appellate Authority vide Order No.25/2010-1l dated 01 .07.2010 upholding the decision of
CPIO.
IV.
Against the decision of CPIO /FAA, the Appellant has preferred Second Appeal before
Hon’ble Central Information Commission was heard and decided by Hon’ble CIC vide decision
CC/SM/A/20l0/00l130 dated 12.07.2010. The operative portion of the decision is furnished below:“After care fully considering the facts of the case and the arguments and submissions offered by all the
parties, we do not think it necessary to direct the CPlO to disclose the property returns filed by the
father-in-law of the Appellant. The CIC, in a number of decisions, has clearly held that the property
returns furnished by employees are in the nature of personal information and cannot ordinarily be
disclosed. It has further held that the only ground for disclosure of such in formation would be the
larger public interest. In the present case, there is no larger public Interest involved at all. Admittedly,
this is a case of marital discord and criminal allegation that dowry was demanded by the Appellant. By
no stretch of imagination, it can be argued that this is a matter of public interest.
Therefore, we find no basis tar interfering with the decision of either the CPIO or the Appellate
Authority. However, we would like the CP1O to inform the Appellant if. under the requirement of the
boot the said employee had furnished any report at any time regarding the gifts, cash or jewellery
resolvedly him from any source. This, we direct, they communicate to the Appellant within 10
working days from the receipt of this order without disclosing the contents of any such report.”
V.
ln Compliance with decision of Central Information Commission orderCIC/SM/A/2010/
001130 dated 12.07.2011 received on 28.07.2011, the Appellant was communicated that no such
report was received from. Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi.
VI.
Now, after a lapse of more than 14 months, the Appellant has filed an Appeal petition dated
19.07.2011 (received on 25.07.2011) incorporating some supplementary information requests and
requesting the Appellate Authority to furnish reply to his queries.
Observations:
1.
In the Appeal petition, the Appellant has preferred to raise additional queries which do not
formed part of the original petitions and also formed supplementary information and not a ground of
appeal in the context of CPIO’s reply. Also, the information sought by the Appellant, the reply
provided by the CPIO has nothing to contribute any ground for the present appeal.
2.
The queries raised by the Appellant under para Nos.I,2 .3 and 7ore in the form of rhetorical and
hypothetical queries on situations and eliciting the views or opinion af CPIO in guise of seeking
information. Under provisions of RTI Act, Na applicant can be allowed the liberty of raising
hypothetical queries about situations and demanding for a public authority to identify the rule or
provision which would fit the description of the situation in respect of administrative actions of the
officials. Also RTI Act does not require the Public Information Officer to deduce some conclusion
from the material and supply the conclusion from the material so deduced to the applicant. PlO is only
required to supply the material’ in the form as held by the Public Authority and is not required to
perform interpretation on behalf of the citizen to deduce anything from the material and then supply to
him. Such queries ore not classified as “Information” Under Sec 2(f). Further no such information
exists, the information requests of the Appellant does not fall under sec 2 (j) of RTI Act 2005.
2.
The copies of the attendance register with contains the leave details of Shri Ramesh Kumar
details and leave applications submitted by the staff member spread over a period of 2 years (1.4.2009
to 31.3.2011) formed voluminous details and disproportionately divert the resources of the authorities,
Further, the information request of the petitioner with no relations to public interest or activity formed
the personal information and exempted for disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j)..
3.
Similarly, the leave Travel concession details of the staff member sought by the appellant is
fishing and roving type and ambiguous in nature and for an indefinite period and therefore can be
treated as the one without specifying particulars as per sec 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.
4.
As per the Provisions of RTI Act 2005, the petitioners are entitled only for the information”
which means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, email, press releases,
circulars, etc held in document form or electronic form, It does not include any service, which includes
certification confirmation, verification, assurances etc., Therefore, CPIO is not expected to certify
copies of the documents enclosed by the petitioners purportedly belongs to a Branch record without
knowing the entitlement of the Appellant. Such requests do not fall under the definition of
‘Information’ as per the provision of Sec 2(f) RTI Act 2005 and beyond the scope and duties of CPIO.
Order of the Appellate Authority:-
The Appellant has more inclined towards the settlement of family issues with the Employee
Shri.Ramesh Kurnar Sethi and preferred to file number of petitions/Appeals under Right to In
formation Act In this regard, Hon’ble CIC held in the earlier decision ClC/SM/A/2010/001130 dated
12th July 2011 that there is no larger public interest is Involved in the present case.
In the Appeal petition, the Appellant has raised rhetorical queries on hypothetic situation
alleging mis utilization of bank properties by Sri. Ramesh Kumar Sethi, as and elicit the views or
opinion from CPIO in the guise of seeking information. Such queries are not squarely fit in to the
definition of information‘as per Sec 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Also, no information is available in this
regard and therefore out of the purview of Sec 20) of RTI Act 2005.
The Copies of attendance register which contains the leave details of Sri.Ramesh Kumar Sethi
spread over a period of 2 years formed voluminous details and would disproportionately divert the
resources of the authorities. Also, the leave application forms submitted by the staff member formed
personal information of others in the absence of larger public interest and exempted for disclosure
under Sec 8(1)0) of RTI Act 2005. Also, the beneficial provisions of RTI Act 2005 should not be
misused for settling personal scores.
In view of above facts and circumstances, it may be noted that indiscriminate and impractical
demands under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry in formation which has no relevance to
transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption
would be counterproductive as it would adversely affect the efficiency of the administration,
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant was not satisfied with the PIO reply and FAA order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Amit Bhandari through video conferencing at NIC Studio in Pune.
Respondent: Absent
The Appellant outlines the specific points of information that he has not recived.
1) Information regarding the utilization of the banks’ flats.
2) Leave records of employees of the public authority.
3) Verification of bank receipts
The Commission has considered the demand of the Appellant for the three points mentioned by him.
As regards query 1 & 2, there could be no grounds for exemption regarding giving the information.
The examples quoted by the PIO of the Commission’s decisions are not relevant in the instant case.
However, as regards query 3, the Commission agrees with the PIO that the demand for verification of
the receipts cannot be given under the Right to Information Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines,
“Right to Information” and such verification is not included in this. In view of this, the Commission
does not agree the Appellant’s plea with regard to Query 3.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as per the available record to the
Appellant on points 1 & 2 listed above before 30 March 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
09 March 2012
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))