Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3165
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
ANIL JAIN – Appellant
Versus
Punjab & Sind Bank – Respondent
CIC/PASBK/A/2023/647051
The RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to compile non-available information, and personal information not serving public interest is exempt from disclosure.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 7(9) and 8(1)(j) - RTI application seeking information on representation to the Bank - CPIO's response deemed appropriate as per RTI provisions - Information regarding rank and designation of officials denied as personal information not serving public interest - No obligation on public authority to collate non-available information. (Paras 3, 7, 8)
(B) RTI Act - Obligation of public authority - The RTI Act does not require public authorities to collect or collate information that is not maintained in a specific format, which would disproportionately divert resources. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on the status of his representation to the Bank, which was not responded to in a timely manner. After a First Appeal, the CPIO provided a response citing exemptions under the RTI Act. The Appellant subsequently filed a Second Appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the CPIO had provided an appropriate response in accordance with the RTI Act and that the information sought was exempt from disclosure.
Issues: The main issues included whether the CPIO's response was adequate and whether the information sought was subject to disclosure under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CPIO's response was in compliance with the RTI Act, emphasizing that personal information not serving public interest is exempt from disclosure and that public authorities are not obligated to compile non-available information.
Result: Appeal disposed of accordingly.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
- “Kindly refer to my E-mail dated 23/02/2023, addressed to Managing Director of your Bank. An evidence of the Mail dated 23/02/2023 is enclosed and marked as Annexure E. With reference to Annexure E, kindly provide the following information:
- (i) Daily progress report from the date of receiving Annexure E till the date of providing information.
- (ii) Rank & designations of officials with whom my representation (sent through mail dated 23/02/2023) was lying during this period and details of action taken by him/her. If no action is taken, please provide the reasons, as available in records.
- (iii) Certified copy of the Citizen Charter for disposal of representations received from public.
- (iv) Kindly provide the following information, w.r.t. Orders passed by Central Information Commission (CIC), since 01/01/2020 to date of providing information:
- S. No File No/Date of Order Show Cause Notice issued to the official (Rank) Show Cause Dropped (yes/No) Penalty Imposed (Yes/No) Rank & designation of the official Penalized Date of Compliance /Non Compliance Rank/Present place of Posting 2. Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.08.2023 directed the CPIO to provide a suitable reply to the Appellant within 20 days of the receipt of the order.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
- (i) “Your Email dated 23/02/2023 addressed to Managing Director was forwarded to HRD Department & RTI Cell.
- The averments made by you in your representation is sub-judice before court of law.
- (ii) The information sought by you regarding rank & designation of the official are personal information the disclosure of which does not serve any public activity or interest.
- Hence exempted u/s 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
- Further, the averments made by you in your representation is sub-judice before court of law.
- (iii) There is no specific charter for disposal of representation received from the public but all representations are dealt in accordance with the Regulations of our Bank as per its applicability.
- (iv) Information sought is not maintained in the desired format & compilation of such information would result in disproportionate diversion of Bank’s resources. The RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to the applicant.”
4. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.10.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Vidhya Bhushan, CPIO along with Jasmeet Singh Dua attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Commission took on record the written submission of the Appellant stating that he would like to rely upon certain CIC decisions during the hearing dealing with similar or identical appeals. These reliance’s were enclosed as copy of decisions issued in Second Appeal No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2023/648561 dated 03.07.2024 and File No. CIC/MCDND/A/2023/118346 dated 26.06.2024.
7. The Respondent at the outset tendered their apology for not having provided any reply to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. At the same time, the CPIO expressed his inability to comment on the reasons for the omission caused by the then CPIO who has since retired, however, assured that upon taking charge, he has ensured timely disposal of the RTI Applications. It was further submitted that in compliance with the FAA’s order, the CPIO had provided the following reply:
- “Under Point No. 1, applicant had asked for the Daily progress report from the date of receiving his e-mail dtd. 23.02.2023, in reply to which he was replied by the then CPIO:
- "Your Email dated 23.02.2023 addressed to Managing Director was forwarded
