IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 2100 of 2007()
1. CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... Respondent
2. C.S.SHYAM, CHIRAMEL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :20/09/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 2100 OF 2007 E
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th September,2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
Canara Bank, which is a nationalized bank and a prestigious institution in
the country, calls in question the orders passed by the Central Information
Commission, New Delhi. The Commission, on the request made by the second
respondent in the Writ Petition, has directed the Bank to furnish the information
requested by the second respondent.
2. Before the learned single Judge, the Bank had raised three issues for
consideration and decision. They are as under:
“(i) Under the Right to Information Act (“the Act” for short) only
those information mentioned in Section 4 of the Act alone
need be furnished.
(ii) The information requested for by the 2nd respondent is
exempted from disclosure by virtue of sub-sections (e) and
(j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, and
(iii) The information sought for by the 2nd respondent was so
voluminous that it is physically impossible to furnish the
same without employing considerable manpower and time.”
3. Learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition by the judgment
dated 11th July, 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank is before us in this
appeal. At the time of hearing of the appeal for admission, the learned senior
counsel Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan would submit that if the request of the second
respondent has to be considered then the Bank would require tremendous
manpower and also sufficient time to gather the information.
4. The learned single Judge at paragraph 9 of the judgment has made it
W.A. NO.2100 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
clear that the request of the second respondent before the authorities under the
Right to Information Act is for “information in respect of the clerical staff
transferred to Ernakulam District of the Canara Bank for the period from 2002 to
2006. Keeping in view the request so made by the second respondent, the
learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the stand of the Bank that they
would require tremendous manpower and time to collect that information may not
be justified. Therefore, the learned Judge has directed the Bank to furnish that
information to the second respondent.
5. In the words of the learned Judge:
“9. The last contention is that the information requested for
by the 2nd respondent relates to a period of five years and it would
require tremendous manpower and time to gather the same. I do
not find much merit in this contention also. It is not as if every day
the bank transfers clerical staff. At the most transfers would be
only once in a year. In Ext.P1, which is the request made by the 2nd
respondent for information, he has specifically stated that the
information which he requires is in respect of clerical staff
transferred to Ernakulam District of the Canara Bank for the period
from 2002 to 2006. Such information for a period of five years
cannot be said to be that voluminous requiring tremendous
manpower and time. In any event, when the Act does not exempt
voluminous information from disclosure, the petitioner cannot deny
such information on that ground. In the above circumstances, I do
not find any merit in this contention also.”
6. After going through the orders passed by the learned single Judge at
paragraph 9 of the judgment, what we understand is that the second respondent
when he approached the authorities under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, has only requested the Bank to provide him information in
respect of the clerical staff transferred to the branches of the Bank in Ernakulam
District. In our opinion, to provide that information would not require either
tremendous manpower or time. Therefore, the contention canvassed by the
W.A. NO.2100 OF 2007
:: 3 ::
learned senior counsel before us has no merit and the same requires to be
rejected.
7. This is the only contention canvassed by the learned senior counsel.
8. In view of the above, we pass the following:
O r d e r
(i). The Writ Appeal is disposed of.
(ii). We direct the Appellant-Bank to furnish information to the second
respondent, regarding the transfers made by the Bank in respect of the
clerical staff to Ernakulam District for the period from 2002 to 2006 within a
month’s time from today.
(iii). The Bank will also provide the guidelines for effecting transfer of the clerical
staff, if such guidelines are available with them.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/DK