Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000874
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18 May 2011
Date of decision : 18 May 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta
C/o. Smt. Neha H L,
RC Barrack No. 3, Room No.25,
Chembur Colony, Mumbai.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Canara Bank,
Legal Section, Recovery Wing,
Head Office, 112, JC Road,
Bangaluru - 560 002.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Hari P.V., Senior Manager was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We had heard this case on the last occasion on 10 February 2011. In
our order dated 14 February 2011, we had directed that the relevant officer
from the legal department of the Bank should appear before us and explain his
role and responsibility in both the delaying and denying the information in this
case. The brief facts of this case are as under.
3. The Appellant in this case had raised a large number of queries in his
RTI application, mostly in the form of questions on a variety of matters. The
CPIO had consulted the legal department which had advised that since the
Appellant had raised queries, this did not come within the purview of
CIC/SM/A/2010/000874
information as defined in Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Based on this advice, the CPIO had denied the information to the Appellant.
4. The officer concerned from the legal department of the bank submitted
that they had provided their views on the RTI application within five working
days of receiving it from the CPIO and, therefore, could not be blamed for any
delay in the case. On scrutiny of the relevant records, we noted that, indeed,
the reference had been sent to the legal department late and, obviously, they
cannot be blamed for any consequent delay. However, the fact remains that the
opinion given by the legal department was seriously flawed. Besides, the legal
department had not explained in any detail as to how the request for
information could be dismissed merely because it was framed in the shape of
questions and queries. The Respondent argued that the CIC itself had ruled in
the past that RTI requests presented in the form of queries need not be
considered as valid request for information. To say the least, this is a clear
misreading of the said decision of the CIC. A citizen can ask for information in
many ways, especially since the Right to Information (RTI) Act does not lay
down any particular format for seeking information. The bottom line is that the
request for information should lead to some available records. Therefore,
whenever a CPIO receives an application requesting for information, he must
examine the request, irrespective of the form in which it is phrased, to
determine if it has any relationship to any available records in the possession of
the public authority. Viewed in this light, many of the queries of the present
Appellant would clearly fall in the category of information as defined in Section
2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Thus, the opinion given by the legal
department that none of the queries of the Appellant would fall in the category
of information is both wrong and decidedly against the spirit of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. In fact, it appears as if the legal department tendered
CIC/SM/A/2010/000874
such opinion only to deny the information to the Appellant.
5. The Respondent also argued that the responsibility of the legal
department was limited only to giving an opinion and it was for the CPIO to
finally decide if the information should be disclosed or not. He argued that the
blame for not disclosing the information could not, therefore, be placed on the
legal department. There is some merit in this argument. After all, the opinion of
the legal department was not binding on the CPIO. Thus, the CPIO has also to
explain why he chose not to disclose the information. In order to resolve this
matter, we would like to hear the explanation of both the CPIO and the relevant
officer of the legal department who had dealt with this case.
6. The case be fixed for hearing through videoconferencing (NIC, VC
Studio State Centre, 7th Floor, Mini Tower, Visveshwaraya Building, Dr.
Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangaluru. Contact Officer: Shri M. Subramanian,
ScientistC, Contact No. 08022863218) on 22 June 2011 at 11.15 a.m. and
both the CPIO concerned and the officer from the legal department who had
tendered the opinion that the queries did not amount to information should are
directed to be present during the hearing for offering their explanation
whereafter we would decide on the desirability of imposition of penalty.
7. The case is disposed off accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2010/000874
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
CIC/SM/A/2010/000874