Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5497
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
MANOJ BHARGAV – Appellant
Versus
United Commercial Bank (UCO) – Respondent
CIC/UCOBK/A/2023/141329
Queries seeking clarifications do not constitute specific information under the RTI Act, thus are not subject to disclosure.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) - RTI application seeking information regarding ATM installation and lease agreements - CPIO denied information citing confidentiality and exemptions under the Act - FAA upheld CPIO's decision, stating queries were not specific and sought clarifications - Commission found no infirmity in CPIO's reply. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 8)
(B) Information Exemption - Queries seeking clarifications do not fall under the purview of the RTI Act as they do not seek specific information. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about an ATM's installation, lease agreements, and related contracts. The CPIO denied the request, citing confidentiality and exemptions under the RTI Act. The FAA upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's second appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the queries were not specific and were in the nature of seeking clarifications, thus falling outside the scope of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issues were whether the information sought was specific and whether the exemptions cited by the CPIO were applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the queries were not specific and sought clarifications, which are not covered under the RTI Act, affirming the CPIO's decision.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) पुराना वाड(cid:8) नंबर 8 नया-19 मारवाड़ी कांवर संघ के पास गीतालय होटल के नजदीक आपके ब(cid:28)क (यूको ब(cid:28)क) का एक ATM लगा (cid:31)आ है जो िक देखने से #तीत होता है िक मारवाड़ी कांवर संघ के दीवार से सटे (cid:31)ए सरकारी सड़क पर बना (cid:31)आ है। है या नही?ं
(ii) उस जगह पर अव’(त पुराना वाड(cid:8) नंबर-8 नया-19 मेघलाल पुरी लेन, मारवाड़ी कांवर संघ के पास लगा (cid:31)आ ATM की िकससे आपका अनुबंध (cid:31)आ है। उस अनुबंध का आधार *ा है, िजस आधार को आप सही पाकर ATM लगाया है, स+ूण(cid:8) -ौरा द/।
(iii) उस ATM को लगाने के िलए लगाने वाले एवं लगवाने वाले 0’1यों का
नाम/सं(ान/NGO/सं(ा के 2ारा िकया गया है? 34 कर/।
(iv) उस ATM का लीज, ए5ीम/ट, एकरारनामा िकससे (cid:31)आ है और उसका भाड़ा *ा है और वह भाड़ा िकसको देते ह(cid:28), भाड़ा देने का आधार *ा है?34 कर/।
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
उपयु(cid:8)1 िवषय म/ हम आपको यह सूिचत करना चाहते ह(cid:28) िक आपके 2ारा मांगी गई सूचना गोपनीय है िजस पर सूचना के #कटीकरण से छूट #दान की गई है।
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO and in addition to the same observed that the information sought by the appellant was also exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.10.2023.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Amit Kumar, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent is in contradiction to the spirit of the RTI Act and relied upon an order passed by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2011/004327/VS, wherein the information related to lease documents of bank’s premises was denied as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent in this case had taken the plea of Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, which was not applicable in this case.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had not sought any specific documents or records in his RTI application. Therefore, the CPIO in his reply dated 23.08.2023 stated that the queries in nature of seeking clarification could not be provided to the appellant. In addition to the CPIO’s reply, the FAA further stated that information, if so, was related to lease documents of the bank’s ATM which was exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that prima facie the queries were in the nature of seeking clarifications/confirmations, which were squarely not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and no further scope for direction to the respondent lies in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
