Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6943
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA, J
Janak Lal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
MCD – Respondent
CIC/MCDND/A/2023/140459
The right to information under the RTI Act must be upheld, and incomplete responses from the CPIO are insufficient; relevant information must be provided unless valid exemptions apply.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 20(1) - Appeals filed against the CPIO regarding non-receipt of information through RTI applications - The appellant sought information related to board meetings and decisions concerning his disciplinary appeal - The CPIO's response was deemed incomplete and evasive - The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the requested information regarding the appellant's appeal and related minutes. (Paras 1, 3, 6)
(B) Confidentiality of Documents - Minutes of board meetings classified as confidential and internal use only - The court emphasized that the appellant's right to information must be balanced against confidentiality provisions. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed RTI applications seeking information about board meetings of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank in 2012 and decisions regarding his dismissal appeal. The CPIO's responses were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the second appeal before the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the CPIO's replies incomplete and directed the CPIO to provide the necessary information regarding the appellant's appeal and the minutes of the relevant meetings within three weeks.
Issues: The main issues included whether the CPIO provided adequate information regarding the appellant's appeal and the classification of meeting minutes as confidential.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to information under the RTI Act must be upheld, and the CPIO must provide the requested information unless a valid exemption applies, which was not established in this case.
Result: Appeals disposed of with directions.
O R D E R
(14.10.2022)
1. The appellant filed the above mentioned three appeals against the CPIO, Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Ranchi with respect to three RTI applications seeking similar information. All the appeals were being clubbed together for hearing and disposal, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
1.1 The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 14.12.2020/08.10.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI applications dated 05.08.2020/18.06.2020 and first appeals dated 16.09.2020/21.08.2020 which was reproduced as under:-File Nos. CIC/RUGBK/A2020/140857 & CIC/RUGBK/A/2020/140459
(i) That, in year 2012 you were one of the members in Board of Director of Jharkhand Gramin bank and had participated in board meeting held on 19/10/2012 and 16/11/2012. Please provide the document / minute of the meeting that shows your presence in the meeting.
(ii) That, on 19/10/2012 and 16/11/2012 board meeting of Jharkhand Gramin Bank, employee Naresh Prasad’s appeal was kept as agenda 14 & 12 of respective date before the board for final decision by Board of Directors. Please provide information what was your decision /comment on appeal of Naresh Prasad. File No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2020/131202
(iii) How many times the board meeting were held in the year January 2012 to December 2012.
(iv) Name and Number of members attended the board meeting in the year January 2012 to December 2012.
(v) Please provide the minutes of the board meeting held in the year January 2012 to December 2012.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.08.2020/18.06.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank, Ranchi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.07.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.09.2020/21.08.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 17.09.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 08.10.2020/14.12.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.10.2020/14.12.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.07.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“i) There were six board meeting were held in the year 2012. ii)
The details of name and number of member who attended the meeting in the year 2012 is given in the following chart:
| Date of Meeting | Name of Members | Total number of members |
| 07.02.2012 | i) Sh. S. Vaidhinathan, Chairman ii) Shri Tarloachan Singh, Z.M. Bank of India, Ranchi iii) Shri J.C.Kanwar, Z.M., Bank of India,Jamshedpur iv) Shri A.K.Lal, AGM RBI Ranchi v) Shri K.C. Panigrahi, DGM NABARD vi) Shri R.K. Shukla, Non-official Director vii) Shri Badriram, Non-official Director | 07 |
| 07.05.2012 | i) Sh. S. Vaidhinathan, Chairman ii) Shri Tarloachan Singh, Z.M. Bank of India, Ranchi iii) Shri J.C.Kanwar, Z.M., Bank of India,Jamshedpur iv) Shri A.K.Lal, AGM RBI Ranchi v) Shri K.C. Panigrahi, DGM NABARD vi) Shri R.K. Shukla, Non-official Director vii) Shri Badriram, Non-official Director | 07 |
| 06.08.2012 | i) Sh. S. Vaidhinathan, Chairman ii) Shri Tarloachan Singh, Z.M. Bank of India, Ranchi iii) Shri J.C.Kanwar, Z.M., Bank of India,Jamshedpur iv) Shri K.C. Panigrahi, DGM NABARD v) Shri R.K. Shukla, Non-official Director vi) Shri Badriram, Non-official Director | 06 |
| 19.10.2012 | i) Sh. S. Vaidhinathan, Chairman ii) Shri Tarloachan Singh, Z.M. Bank of India, Ranchi iii) Shri J.C.Kanwar, Z.M., Bank of India,Jamshedpur iv) Shri K.C. Panigrahi, DGM NABARD v) Shri R.K. Shukla, Non-official Director vi) Shri Badriram, Non-o | |
