A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Husband was asked to provide proof such as marriage certificate or authorization letter from the Appellant for inspection of records of sexual harassment complaint - CIC: Information containing 332 pages would attract Sec 7(9) of RTI Act being voluminous

Appellant raised concerns pertaining to illegal construction - CIC took an adverse note of the conduct of the then PIO and FAA and directed the Additional Commissioner, MCD, to call their explanation and to take suitable action in the matter

CIC: Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) has been excluded from the purview of the RTI Act except in the case of allegations of corruption or human rights violations; Appellant has not indicated about any such instances in this particular case

CIC: PIO is advised to suo motu release the Inspection Report with remarks of inspection team held at Akal College of Pharmacy & Technical Education Gursagar Mastuana Sahib by PCI Inspection Team; PIO to submit reason for absence during hearing before CIC

Appellant modified his query during hearing by asking for attendance records of particular dates, which is an extended relief claimed because it was not the part of his original RTI application - CIC: Appellant is at liberty to file fresh RTI application

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Information Commissioner abdicated the statutory responsibility and acted as an agent of the government

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: Even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the Respondent’s argument are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act; Where PIO relies on misuse of RTI Act, allegations to be supported with proof

19 May, 2025

O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/119412

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) “Please provide the certified copy of account statement of Account No. *******3037 along with narration of each entry.

(i) Confirm date of opening of the account.

(ii) Please provide detail of processing fees charge by bank at time of opening of above said account.

2) Please provide the certified copy of account statement of Account No. *******0217 along with narration of each entry.

(i) Please provide detail of processing fees charge by bank at time of opening of above said account.

3) Please provide the certified copy of account statement of Account No. *******8033 along with narration of each entry. (i) Please provide detail of processing fees charge by bank at time of opening of above said account.”

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Query not specific. Seeking confirmation does not fall under the purview of ‘information’ as defined under 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; “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; of the RTI Act.

It is also observed that you are filing continuous RTI Applications one after another which is clear misuse of provisions of RTI Act.

It has already been informed to you that Recovery Suit has been filed against you by the bank, which you are well aware of and all related documents are filed in the said Suit.

You are seeking information in order to mislead the undersigned and such action shall disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act.

Moreover, it is also observed that seeking information on behalf of Company without Resolution passed by the company is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act.”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.05.2024.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/117836

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) “Please provide the certified copy of CC account no. ******* 7956 on dated 22.05.2014 that the account is standard.

2) WCTL account No. *******6033 limit 12.04 crore for devolvement LC drawing power zero provide the certified copy of the same to be supplied 30.09.2014 up to 31.03.2020.

3) FITL account No. *******0217 for funded interest term loan for Rs. 6.70 crore drawing power zero provide the certified copy of the same to be supplied 30.09.2014 up to 31.03.2020.

4) Please provide the certified copy terms & conditions of sanction letter dated 29.09.2014 at sr. number 11 pre-disbursement terms & conditions which were complied by the borrower.

5) FITL Account No. *******3037 for funded interest term loan certified copy of the same to be supplied 30.09.2014 till date closure of the account.”

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Query not clear. Only specific information can be sought under RTI Act. Seeking clarification / expression of opinion / drawing of inference /confirmation etc. do not come under the definition of “information” as per 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; “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; of RTI Act. It is also observed that you are filing continuous RTI Applications one after another which is clear misuse of provisions of RTI Act.

It has already been informed to you that Recovery Suit has been filed against you by the bank, which you are well aware of and all related documents are filed in the said Suit.

Moreover, it is also observed that seeking information on behalf of Company without Resolution passed by the company is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act.”

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO. 2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.06.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sreeja Rani, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The Appellant’s contentions during the hearing are found to be better contained in the written statement filed by him prior to the hearing, largely arguing common grounds in both cases as under:

“1. The CPIO made absurd excuses for not providing the sought Information. Details are as follow:-

a. Query is not clear Query is clear, the CPIO Intentionally not replied and manipulating the reply.

b. Misuse of provisions of RTI Act by filling continuously RTI applications - We have every right to apply RTI and sought information and how can anybody misuse the Information obtained from RTI. How the CPIO is troubled for the RTI Information?

C. All Information has already been informed to us in Recovery Suit. - it is wrong to allege it that you have supplied the information which we are seeking in the RTI had been filed in Recovery Suit. Further in this regard we are submitting that the information sought is different and not submitted in recovery suit. Please also provide Exhibit number if you have supplied the said information in recovery suit. The CPIO again manipulating the reply. How the CPIO understood that information had been provided in recovery suit?

d. Seeking Information on behalf of company without Resolution Copy of resolutions has already been enclosed in First Appeal. Further the said copy is also enclosed herewith for your kind perusal.

2. Bank cheated the borrower company as well as guarantors by concealing the actual facts from borrower/guarantors and all the loan accounts (as discussed in RTI Application) are not operated as per the guidelines of RBI but in an arbitrary manner. The above said observations were pointed out by the Hon'ble Presiding Officer, DRT Jaipur in his final order dated 14.06.2022. The copy is enclosed for your perusal.

In view of above, your goodself is requested to please passed an order directing the CPIO to provide the sough information in RTI application.”

5. The Respondent’s submissions are also cogently contained in their written submission dated 14.03.2025 filed on almost similar lines in both the cases stating as under:

“…The information sought by the appellant lacks clarity and statement of account is being generated as per the system. The concerned branch has informed that Bank has filed suit against the appellant and sharing of any further information may affect Bank's interest since the appellant is eligible to obtain additional documents if any required through due process of law in the proceedings. The intention of the appellant is malafide and misuse of the provisions of RTI Act. Filing of affidavit with CPIO as submitted by the appellant in Second Appeal will not be sufficient to furnish the statement of account sought by the appellant since CPIO cannot confirm the same and it is record of the concerned Court of Law. The appellant may obtain the same through due process of law in the legal proceedings initiated against the appellant by the Bank. The CPIO is not bound to give narration of each entry for the transactions held in any account.”

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries under reference is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the arguments of the Respondent are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act, particularly in the context of over emphasizing on the pending recovery suit or that the Appellant could access records through a different channel etc.

The Respondent is cautioned to note that under the RTI Act, the CPIO ought to restrict themselves to the definition of information as envisaged under 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; “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 Section 8 exemptions as well as availability/unavailability of information. Any rejection of a RTI Application ought to be strictly premised on the applicable provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012 alone and not any other extraneous considerations.

Similarly, the Respondent is also strictly cautioned to ensure in future that in instances where the CPIO seeks to rely on arguments like repetition and misuse of RTI Act, then allegations of such magnitude ought to be sufficiently supported with relevant proof in terms of details of past record of RTI Applications and Appeal(s) and the replies provided thereupon or atleast any reference of decisions issued by the Commission in matters of the same Appellant with respect to the same public authority.

Nonetheless, in the instant set of cases, the Commission is taking a liberal view of the obtuse and seemingly hysterical replies sent by the CPIO only for the fact that concededly, the RTI Application(s) under reference do not seek any specific information or specify time periods, where required. For the said reasons, no relief is warranted in the matter.

7. With the above observations & strictures issued to the Respondent, the Appeal(s) are disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: N. K. Gupta v. Indian Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/119412 + 117836; Date of Decision: 28.03.2025

CIC: Even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the Respondent’s argument are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act; Where PIO relies on misuse of RTI Act, allegations to be supported with proof

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.