CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002149/15682
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002149
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. K. Vijayakumar
Indian overseas bank
Kodungallur, Thrissur
District, Kerala state- 680664
Respondent : Mr. V. C. Ramachandran
PIO & Dy. General Manager
Indian Overseas bank
RTI Cell, Law department
Central Office, 763 Anna
Salai, Chennai-600002
Tamil Nadu
RTI application filed on : 31-12-2010
PIO replied on : 17-01-2011
First Appeal filed on : 21-02-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 23-03-2011
Second Appeal received on : 07-07-2011
Sl. Information sought Reply of PIO
1. Total number of staff on Cadre wise/scale wise and year wise from 31-03-
1993 to 31-03-2010. Providing the
2. Out of the above total number of SC, ST and OBC members. information would
3. Out of the above total number of first line managers. disproportionately
4. Total number of agriculture officer's year wise from 31-03-1993 to 31-03- divert the resources of
2010. the Public Authority
5. Year wise number of agricultural officers recruited from 31-03-1993 to 31-03- and hence cannot be
2010. provided.
6. Total number of branches year wise from 31-03-1993 to 31-03-2010.
7. Total amount of net profit year wise from 31-03-1993 to 31-03-2010
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The CPIO did not give complete and true information and CPIO did not provide information.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Information given by CPIO is satisfactory.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
PIO had not given complete and true information.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. K. Vijayakumar on video conference from NIC-Thrissur Studio;
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mohanthy, Chief Manager on behalf of Mr. V. C. Ramachandran, PIO & Dy.
General Manager on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The Appellant has sought information for a 17 year period. The PIO has stated that information is
not complied in this format and hence this would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public
Authority. For most such information it would have been possible to offer an inspection of the relevant
records but the PIO states that this information would be distributed amongst 46 Regional Officers and 06
Regional Departments. In view of this even offering an inspection of this nature would be a huge
diversion of resources of public authority.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought is not available in compiled form and it would divert the
resources of the Public Authority very disproportionately to provide the information.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
15 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SU)