Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3729
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
SANGHAMITRA CHATTERJEE – Appellant
Versus
Rural / Gramin Banks – Respondent
CIC/RUGBK/C/2023/616948
The Right to Information Act does not permit personal grievances to be addressed as RTI applications; information must be sought as per the Act's provisions.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f) and 18 - Complaint regarding freezing of salary account - Complainant alleged wrongful freezing of account without court order and sought compensation - Bank acted under police direction and court order for de-freezing - Complainant's queries were not aligned with RTI provisions. (Paras 1-8)
(B) RTI Application - The purpose of RTI is to seek information, not to address personal grievances or seek opinions - Complainant's application did not conform to the requirements of the RTI Act. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application seeking information on the freezing of her salary account by the Bank, claiming it caused her financial distress and mental harassment. The Bank responded that the freezing was done under police instruction.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the Complainant did not seek information as per RTI provisions and her complaint was misplaced.
Issues: The main issues were whether the freezing of the account was lawful and if the Complainant's queries fell under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Complainant's application did not seek information as defined under the RTI Act and was instead a personal grievance.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
O R D E R
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:
“I Sanghamitra Chatterjee From Howrah 711102. I would like to inform you that Paschim Banga Gramin Bank head office which is located at Chatterjee Para More, Natabar Paul Rd, Tikiapara, Howrah, West Bengal 711101 had intentionally malfidely seized my account without my intimation. I cannot able to pay my son tuition fee, Bank EMI, Mobile Bill, Electric bill. I cannot go to school because the Recovery Agent is coming to the School and doing mental harassment and because of this reason I am not going to school and that is the reason for Break of Service. The new Manager who came to Paschim Banga Gramin Bank Manikpur Branch had opened my salary account and cut off the EMI and again seized my Account.I am expecting a positive opinion from Paschim Banga Gramin Bank or give me a sum of 20,00,00,00/- for mental compensation.”
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
“Please take note that Bank has not, suo moto freezed your salary account. Such debit freeze has been carried out under instruction (copy enclosed) from the SI, Chatterjechat PS, HPC, addressed to the Branch Manager, Manikpur Branch, vide PS Case No. 110/2022 dated 29.05.2022.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil stating inter alia as under:
“I know my salary account debit has been frozen but without any court order (it is sub judice). I want to know under the right to information act 2005 under which law my salary account has been frozen and if you could do this even though you have a legal department. My car loan account is linked to my salary account and I am in-service I couldnot able to Enjoy my Salary Account and recovery Agents were coming from YES Bank Limited had doing mental harassing me & that's why I am not going to school but Paschim Banga Gramin Bank had withdrawn several EMI from the debit freeze account. The Bank had intentionally and malfidely withdrawn the EMI in 03 times in December and in the next month the bank withdrawn 02 times in the month of January I'm Requesting you to give sufficient information under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005 or give a compensate of Rs. 10 Cr..”
5. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Vinay Kushwaha, Law Officer & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and submitted on the lines of the CPIO’s written statement filed prior to the hearing stating inter alia as under:
“...Now with respect to the instant Complaint it is stated that the Complainant has raised her grievances against the Chatterjeehat Police Station for issuing the debit freeze direction to the Bank, as such no comments are made on this point. It is stated that the Bank has acted as per the direction of the S.I. of Chatterjeehat PS for freezing the account as well as Court’s order dated 09.05.2024 for de-freezing the account. That the said letter from SI Chatterjeehat Police Station for freezing the account was duly communicated to the Appellant/Complainant vide CPIO’s reply dated 06.02.2023.
Further, the Appellant/Complainant has not raised any objection or any dissatisfaction from the reply of the CPIO rather she has raised new/fresh queries in her complaint.
Further, a careful reading of the instant shall reveal that the Appellant is addressing her personal grievances in the guise of RTI Act and seeking opinion/clarification of the authorities rather than requesting any information available on record.
At last, since the Bank has de-freezed the said account as per the direction vide order dated 09.05.2024 of the
