ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “As per your reply submitted 02/OCT/2019 AA NO. APP1/79/2019 where by in loan A/C NO. XXXXX1652. Your observation it is observed that the bifurcation of loan was done as per their letter dated 05.01.2012 50% of the principal outstanding excluding HSP of 163,117/- The same reply was confirm by HDFC LTD. But principal outstanding as per HDFC LTD. on deletion date was Rs. 24.06 LAC. HDFC Collected Rs. 10.40 LAC (Usha Oberoi) in above loan A/C and transferred Rs. 13.66 LAC in my A/C (Dheeraj Oberoi) kindly confirm the process of deletion is correct as per the statement given by NHB/ HDFC LTD.

inform of figures.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“As the information sought requires drawing of inferences and / or making of assumptions and giving advice of opinion, the National Housing Bank (NHB) has no information to furnish.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 29.04.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 17.07.2022.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Aditya Sharma, CPIO and Shri Nilender Vatsayam, Advocate, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had provided incomplete and misleading information in response to his RTI application. He further stated that relief of 10% was offered to him, however, the same was deleted later. Therefore, he wanted to know the process under which the deletion took place.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought conformation of an action/inaction through his RTI application, which was not covered within the definition of “information” under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commissio n [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under: <br/>

“….. In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.

Section 2(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;

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.

Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) ( आनंदी राम लंगम आ