The RTI Act prohibits raising new queries at the appellate stage, affirming the original response's adequacy.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - The Appellant sought information regarding a fraudulent transaction and the response from the CPIO was deemed inadequate. The First Appeal upheld the CPIO's response, leading to a Second Appeal before the Commission. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Information Disclosure - The Commission concluded that additional queries cannot be raised at the appellate stage, affirming the appropriateness of the original response. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a senior citizen, reported a fraudulent transaction and sought detailed information from the bank, which was found incomplete by the Appellant. (Paras 1-3)

Findings of Court:
The Commission found the response from the CPIO to be appropriate, dismissing the appeal. (Para 8)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the CPIO's response was adequate and if additional queries could be raised at the appellate stage. (Para 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The Commission ruled that the RTI Act does not permit raising new queries at the appellate stage, and upheld the CPIO's response as appropriate. (Para 8)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:

“On 8th July 2022 my Rs. 20000/- hacked from my account. I am senior Citizen (67 years).

Complaint was lodged in Cyber Police and SBI call Centre. Money was filled and given. In 21 days time (citizen charter) money was to returned but no information given. Kindly furnish detail in my case rules regulation, 3 member of comittee name. I Home Dept Govt of India caught 37 hackers in Rajasthan due to my case.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“ SOP for the disputed/fraudulent UPI transaction is enclosed.

Committee consist of four members - All Assistant General Manager.

(a) AGM (Digital Banking) (b) AGM (Fraud Monitoring Cell) (c) AGM (Banking Ombudsman) (d) AGM (Alternate Channel)”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.03.2023 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 06.06.2023.

5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that incomplete information has been provided by the Respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a point-wise suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that additional queries cannot be raised by the appellant at the appellate stage. The Commission further notes that the reply provided by the Appellant is appropriate, hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 6217

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONANANDI RAMALINGAM, JVIPIN KUMAR SONAKIA – AppellantVersusState Bank of India – RespondentCIC/SBIND/A/2023/130247

The RTI Act prohibits raising new queries at the appellate stage, affirming the original response's adequacy.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
VIPIN KUMAR SONAKIA – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
CIC/SBIND/A/2023/130247