A nationalized bank, viz., Canara Bank, challenges the order of the Central Information Commission directing the bank to furnish the information requested for by the 2nd respondent employee of the bank. Ext.P8 is the said order.

2. The information requested for were the following:

“(i) Posting/transfer of clerical staff of the Canara Bank to other branches for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.7.2006.

(ii) Officials promoted and posted to other branches in Ernakulam district.

(iii) Clerical staff transferred in Ernakulam district on temporary basis during the period 1.1.02 to 31.7.06.

(iv) Details of appointment/promotion of clerical staff other than mentioned in (i) and (ii) above during 1.1.02 to 31.7.06 in district Ernakulam.

(v) Furnish copies of transfer guidelines pertaining to clerical staff during 1.1.02 to 31.7.06. The applicant has sought the aforesaid information as per the proforma drawn by the [sic] him.”

The bank seeks to deny furnishing of these information to the 2nd respondent on the following grounds:-

(1) Under the Right to information Act (“the Act” for shore) only those information mentioned in Section 4 of the Act alone need be furnished,

(2) 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

(3) 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. The first contention of the petitioner is that Section 4 of the Act lays down the obligations of the public authorities. Under Section 4(b) every public authority has to publish the information enumerated therein. In respect of the employees of such public authority, only those information enumerated in Sub section (x) of Section 4(b) if required to be furnished and therefore, no other information is compulsorily required to be furnished by any public authority in respect of the employees of that public authority.

4. In answer to the same, the counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that this is a fallacious approach on the part of the petitioner. He would submit that under Section 3, citizens have the right to information subject to the provisions of the Act. The term, “information” is defined in section 2(f) and reading of these two sections together would make it abundantly clear that all information coming within the definition of the word, “information” as defined in the Act have to be supplied to a citizen at his request unless specifically exempted from disclosure under the other provisions of the Act. According to him, the information required to be supplied by a public authority to a citizen on request are not confined to the information mentioned in Section 4. That Section only casts certain obligations on public authorities for maintaining records and publishing the particulars mentioned therein. That does not amount to laying down that only those information which the public authority are required to publish under Section 4(b) alone need be supplied to the citizens on request.

5. On a consideration of the rival arguments, I am of opinion that the stand of the petitioner is not supported by the provisions of Act. Section 3 of the Act reads thus:

“3. Right to information. – Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.”

The word, “information” is defined in Section 2(f), which reads thus:

“2. Definitions, - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx

(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;”

S