Information about freezing of appellant’s saving account was denied - CIC: PIO has cited Sec 24 as though the bank is an exempted organization which is unacceptable; Notice issued for action u/s 20 for providing a misleading reply; Provide a revised reply

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Date of freezing of my Saving account numbers 9412, 9274 and SDR Account number 3135 with your bank and branch i.e. Dena Bank, Junction Plot, Rajkot,

2. Documentary evidence by virtue of which the aforesaid accounts were kept under freeze (Ref ACB Jamnagar FIR no. 9/2001),

3. Copy of prohibitory order from any Court of Law to freeze / seize accounts under ACB Jamnagar FIR No. 9/2001,

4. Date of freezer of said accounts under ACB Jamnagar FIR no. 10/2002,

5. Documentary evidence by virtue of which the said accounts were kept under freezer in ACB Jamnagar FIR no. 10/2002…” etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“We are unable to provide you the information as sought by you as same is exempted from disclosure under section 24 of the Right to Information Act 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

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

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Sripal Singh Tomar, Regional Head & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent submitted that the subject matter of the RTI Application is between the Appellant and CBI and in the second appeal, the Appellant is asking for redressal of grievances which is beyond the purview of the RTI Act. It was furthermore submitted that in the first and second appeal, the Appellant has also raised fresh queries in the form of clarifications and grievances which were not part of the original RTI Application and there cannot be an appeal in that regard. Upon a query from the Commission asking the CPIO to explain their original reply claiming the exemption of Section 24 of the RTI Act, the CPIO harped on the exempt status of Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Gujarat as per relevant notification.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, takes grave exception to the absurd and grossly misleading reply provided to the Appellant in response to the RTI Application. The Respondent has cited Section 24 of the RTI Act as though the bank is an exempted organization and the same is unacceptable and is considered as a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act without any reasonable cause.

Now, therefore, Sripal Singh Tomar, Regional Head & CPIO is hereby directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO i.e. Anjani Kumar Singhal at their present place of posting (under due intimation to the Commission) directing them to submit their written submission explaining as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing a grossly wrong and misleading reply to the instant RTI Application. The show-cause issued to Anjani Kumar Singhal, then CPIO is also for causing a prima-facie deliberate denial of the information since the RTI queries specifically sought for information related to freezing of his bank account, which is very much the domain of the bank in terms of being the concerned record holder and not CBI and even if the record holder was solely CBI, then there should have been a transfer of the RTI Application as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. There is nothing contained in the RTI Act that empowers the CPIO of the Respondent bank to claim exemption on behalf of CBI and even if that were the case, the CPIO did not even bother to specify the same in his reply.

Similarly, Sripal Singh Tomar, Regional Head & CPIO shall also send a written submission explaining as to why the reply of the then CPIO was being mindlessly endorsed even at this stage, impliedly sharing the onus of having provided the wrong & misleading reply. The written submissions of Anjani Kumar Singhal, then CPIO and Sripal Singh Tomar, Regional Head & present CPIO on the above counts of omissions shall reach the Commission within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which stringent action may be initiated in the matter.

8. Furthermore, the CPIO is directed to now provide a revised point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application stating the dates as sought for at points 1,4,7,9,11 and if such dates are not available on record, a categorical reply to this effect shall be stated in the CPIO’s reply. Further, for the remaining points, where documentary evidence or unspecified documents are sought for, the CPIO shall provide a reply stating the non- conformity of these queries to 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; of the RTI Act. The said revised reply of the CPIO incorporating the available information shall be provided to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Nilesh R Gupta v. Bank of Baroda, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/620207; Date of Decision: 06.03.2025