CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000460AT F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000466AT
F.No.CIC/SM/A/2010/000467AT Total : 3 Appeals
Dated, the 12 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri S. Umapathi
Respondent : State Bank of India, Mumbai
s
This matter came up for hearing on 09.11.2010 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 21.10.2010. Appellant was absent when
called, while the respondents were represented by Shri J.Venugopal,
Assistant General Manager (Law).
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000460AT:
2. It is seen from the documents filed by the appellant along with his
secondappeal, that CPIO & General Manager (OL & CS), SBI, Mumbai
replied to his RTIapplication dated 22.08.2009, on 19.12.2009. This
matter was considered by the Appellate Authority in a first appellate
proceeding, following which he issued an order dated 19.01.2010.
Appellate Authority noted that CPIO consented to provide information
relating to appellant’s queries at Sl.Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 and requested
appellant to remit an amount of Rs.412 towards cost of the number of
documents to be made available. This also included the information
relating to queries at Sl.Nos.5, 11 and 12. CPIO declined to disclose
information relating to queries at Sl.Nos.2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 as this involved
collection and collation of information, which was not required under the
RTI Act. Besides, the collection and collation of this information for the
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 1 of 8
period 2004 to 2008 would lead to disproportionate diversion of the public
authority’s resources. This information was further declined, as according
to the judgement of the Appellate Authority, it attracted Section 8(1)(j) and
no public interest warranted that this exemption should be overridden.
3. During the hearing in the secondappeal, it was stated that
information relating to queries at Sl.Nos.1, 3, 6 and 7 as well as to queries
at Sl.Nos.5, 11 and 12 has been provided to the appellant on 19.12.2009
and 27.01.2010.
4. Appellant has questioned the decision under provisions of Sections
7(9) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act not to provide the information to his queries
at Sl.Nos.2, 4, 8, 9 and 10. He has also cited some of the decisions of
the Commission in support of his contention.
5. It is seen that appellant has crammed into his RTIapplication
multiple queries comprising multiple categories of information. Under
Section 6(1) an applicant is required to file RTIapplication for either one
or one category of information. This application, therefore, is not
maintainable. Rajendra Singh Vs. CBI; Appeal No. CIC/WB/C/2007/
00967; Date of Decision: 19.06.2009.
6. Nevertheless, considering the fact that the respondents have
replied to the appellant’s several and multifarious queries, these are taken
up for disposal under the secondappeal.
7. I have noticed that respondents have provided to the appellant all
the information as held by them in regard to the queries to which
disclosure of information was possible, given the text and the tenor of the
query. As regards others, they have taken the plea that they were not
required to collect and collate information to provide it to the appellant for
that would amount to generating information. Respondents were well
within their right to take this position because under Section 2(f) and
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 2 of 8
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act read with Section 6(1), their duty was limited to
providing to the appellant information as they held it. Answering
appellant’s loaded queries through collecting and collating information
was fraught with the danger of errors creeping into them and then
exposing the respondents to charge of giving false and misleading
information. Commission, in its decision in Sanjay Bhaty Vs. Kandla Port
Trust; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000622; Date of Decision: 29.10.2010,
had held that RTI Act did not enjoin a public authority or a CPIO to
‘generate’ information for an applicant’s convenience.
8. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the orders of the CPIO
and the Appellate Authority, which are upheld.
9. Appeal fails. Rejected.
Complaint:
10. Appellant has also complained against delayed supply of
information/replies by the CPIO. He has also charged the CPIO &
General Manager (NetworkI), SBI, Bangalore with failure to act in his
own office to provide the information to the appellant as requested
through his RTIapplication and erroneously transferring the application to
CPIO, Mumbai.
11. It was explained by CPIO during the hearing that the transfer of the
application of the appellant became necessary as the requested
information was not held by the CPIO, Bangalore, before whom the
original application was filed. The information requested was at multiple
points from where these needed to be collected. This made transfer of
the application by the CPIO, Bangalore inevitable.
12. On the subject of delayed supply of information, CPIO explained
that this was caused mainly because the applicant chose to file his RTI
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 3 of 8
application before the CPIO, Bangalore, who was not concerned with the
information he was seeking within the meaning of Section 6(1) of the RTI
Act. It should have been open for that CPIO to reject application on that
count alone in the light of Commission’s decision in Ketan Kantilal Modi
Vs. CBEC; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01280; Date of Decision:
22.09.2009. But helpfully, he chose to transfer it to the offices, where he
believed the information as requested by the appellant was held. This act
of helpfulness has now assumed the characteristic of a failure in the eyes
of this appellant.
13. On the basis of what has been stated by the CPIO, I agree that
there were reasonable grounds which caused the delay in supply of this
information under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
14. In view of the above, there is no case either for a penalty
proceeding or compensating the appellant as demanded by him.
15. Matter closed.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000466AT:
16. As in the previous appeal, in this one also appellant has sought
information for the period 01.01.2004 till date regarding several details
about supervising staff ― total number, designation and names, types of
facility provided to them, for leased accommodation, sanctioning authority
for such entitlements and Leave Registers of the supervising staff for the
period 2004 till the merger of the State Bank of Saurashtra with the State
Bank of India in 2008.
17. This information was denied on the ground that those relating to
queries at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were not centrally maintained and it was
not possible to collect and collate the same. Section 7(9) was cited as
well as Section 8(1)(j).
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 4 of 8
18. Appellant, as in the previous case, faulted the Appellate Authority
for not applying his mind and, endorsing the views of the CPIO without
due consideration.
19. During the hearing, it was explained by the CPIO that the
information declined to the appellant was the one which related to the
period prior to the merger of the State Bank of Saurashtra with the State
Bank of India. The requested information has been found to be
untraceable. Even if an attempt is made to locate this information, it
would be a Herculean task because it relates to the period prior to the
merger of the State Bank of Saurashtra with the SBI. It also meant
compiling this information from numerous files and examining it in the
context of the rules followed by the State Bank of Saurashtra prior to
merger. This was bound to be a timeconsuming, labourious and
expensive exercise.
20. I agree with the respondents that the requested information is not
centrally maintained and collecting and collating it is not an obligation cast
by RTI Act on the public authority in the context of Section 2(f) and
Section 2(j) read with Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
21. Nothing what the appellant has stated in his secondappeal petition
derogates from that position.
Complaint:
22. As in the previous case, appellant has complained about delay in
supplying the information to him and demanded that penalty be imposed
on the CPIO besides compensation be awarded to the appellant. He had
asked for personal hearing, but despite notice, he was not present.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 5 of 8
23. The decision in the previous appeal (viz. Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/
2010/000466AT) will apply to this appeal as well mutatismutandis.
24. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000467AT:
25. Appellant’s RTIapplication dated 12.11.2009 sought a series of
information relating to, what he described as, “action taken on my appeal
against voluntary vacation of employment under Rule 40 (3) of State
Bank of Saurashtra Officers Service Regulation (now SBI)”.
He sought these information regarding name and designation of the
official of the corporate centre of the SBI who received his above appeal
dated 17.03.2009 along with extracts of the Mail Inward Register, date of
receipt, mode of receipt, etc.; the chronological details of the action taken
by Deputy MD and CDO; copies of all letters including filenotings in
connection with the processing of the above matter; the present status of
the appeal; reasons for its nondisposal; status of his followup letter
dated 05.08.2009; certified copies of all the correspondence that had
been exchanged in this connection.
26. CPIO, through a communication dated 15.12.2009, provided to the
appellant pointwise replies, which was followed up by another letter
dated 22.12.2009.
27. During hearing, respondents stated that except for query at Sl.No.4
― relating to present status of the appeal (dated 17.03.2009) ― and
query at Sl.No.5 ― reasons for nondisposal ― all other information has
been furnished to the appellant. These two queries could not be replied to
as the decisionmaking process was still incomplete.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 6 of 8
28. Appellant, in his grounds of appeal, has stated that incomplete
information was provided to him in respect of queries at Sl.Nos.1, 4, 5, 6
and 8. He demands that, for query at Sl.No.5, he was entitled to receive
from the public authority the reasons for its administrative or quasijudicial
decision as speltout in Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
29. From the appeal petition, it would seem that appellant wishes to
engage the respondents in a dialogue about the quantity and the quality
of the information provided to him. I have noted in some of my earlier
decisions that this appellant has filed a series of petitions with multiple
queries in a routine and aggressive fashion largely centered on his own
severance of relationship with the erstwhile State Bank of Saurashtra.
This petition is no exception.
30. However, in my view, ends of justice should be met by allowing the
appellant to inspect the records held by the public authority in relation to
the RTIqueries he has made so that he conceive for himself firsthand as
to how the above appealpetition of his was processed by the public
authority. While appellant shall be entitled to receive the information as it
is on record, it is not his right to demand that the public authority explain
to him as to why no action was taken on his appealpetition, or why action
was taken in a particular way and, not another. His reading of Section
4(1)(d) is entirely incorrect. He may refer to Commission’s decision in
Virchand A. Shah Vs. Central Excise; Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01298;
Date of Decision: 18.06.2008 about the interpretation of Section 4(1)(d).
31. It is, therefore, directed that, within four weeks, on a day and time
to be intimated to the appellant by the CPIO, he shall be allowed to
inspect the records held in relation to his RTIqueries. He shall be allowed
to take such copies of the as he might choose. Should he need certified
copies the CPIO shall take action under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 7 of 8
32. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
Complaint:
33. Appellant’s complaint is on the same lines as in previous two
appeals. The decision in the above appeal (viz. No.CIC/AT/A/2010/
000460AT) will apply to the present one as well mutatismutandis.
34. Matter closed.
35. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_SM_A_2010_000460_M_45657.doc
Page 8 of 8