ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2022 seeking the following information:

“Jab grahak loan amount nahi chukata h tab public sector bank branch manager grahak ke khilaf court mei case file karta h tab bank branch manager ke pas ke un sabhi adhikaro ki jankari de jisme ki loan account holder ke account me jo guarantor hai uske jinda jeeta jagta aadmi ko bhi apne bank ke hito ke liye aur court mei loan recovery ki decree karwane ke liye guarantor ko dead ghoshit batane ka adhikar rakhta h aur aisa karne mei bank branch manager ke kamyab hone per grahak ka loan amount na chuka pane ki position mei bank manager dawara guarantor ko jindagi se chutkara de dene ke liye kahne aur karne baare bhi sabhi adhikaro aur niyamo ki jankari di jaye uprokt parkar se bank ke hit ke liye grahak aur guarantor ko maansik pratadit karne ke liye bank organisation se ya RBI se branch chief manager ko prapt adhikaro ki jankari di jaye uprokt situation mei bank ke bade adhikariyon aur RBI dwara aise bank branch manager per karyawahi ke liye lagne wali sabhi dhaarao ki jaankari aur iski vasooli unki salary se li jane ke pravdhano ki bhi soochna di jaye”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The sought information does not fall u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, cannot be provided.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 02.11.2022 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 Nil.

5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Naveen Kumar AGM and CPIO, Mr. Rajesh Arora Manager Law attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information has been wrongly denied to him.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia referred to their written submission dated 25.04.2024, relevant paragraphs from the same has been reproduced hereunder: -

“…a) It is respectfully submitted that the RTI application was received on 26.08.2022 and reply to the same was given on 19.09.2022 i.e. within the time limit specified under Right to Information Act, 2005.

b) It is respectfully submitted that the sought information was/is in the nature of query/questionnaire and hypothetical, which is not covered under the definition of Information provided under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply to RTI request was given accordingly.

c) It is respectfully submitted that the public authority under the RTI Act is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' which is not material available in the records/files of Public Authority to an applicant or furnish replies to hypothetical questions, d) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497) has held that:

"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act.

The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obl