ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.07.2022 seeking information on the following points:

 “Subject-matter: As the manager of respondent bank (Mr. Vipin Kumar) pasted the Xerox copy of the DRT court summons at the gate of my house, even when we were inside the house and your bank Manager (Mr. Vipin Kumar) has not ring a bell of my house. Moreover, when we checked the orders of the DRT court, there is no order of pasting the DRT summon at the gate of my house (Copy Attached).

When we talked with Mr. Vipin Kumar in this regard, then they said that I know that the DRT summon has been received by you, because I have the POD of your receiving. But still I will come at your doorstep to deliver the DRT Samman and t will paste it at your gate.

i. Now please provide me with a copy of any such order in which it is written that if we do not take summons from Mr. Vipin Kumar himself, then they can paste it outside our house even without any order for pasting from the DRT court.

ii. Also please provide me copy of any such "rule/circular of Bank or DRT" in which it is written that the concerned branch manager can paste the DRT summons on the gate of the opposing party without any order for pasting of Summan from the DRT Court, even if the branch manager already knows that the summons has already been received by the opposite party.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.07.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “The information sought by you does not qualify under the definition of "information under RTI and which does not fall under the purview of definition of 'information' in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and hence, we are unable to provide the requested information.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2022 alleging that the reply provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 13.09.2022 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 02.12.2022

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Surinder Kumar, Divisional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had availed a loan of Rs. 1.40 crores from the respondent bank and, subsequently, the same was declared NPA. However, the appellant had refused to receive the notice served upon him under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. He had filed a grievance regarding serving of notice through his RTI application. In their reply dated 29.07.2022, the CPIO responded that the appellant had raised allegations in hypothecation and sought documents to support his claim, which could not be substantiated in material form.

7. the commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply was given by the cpio on 29.07.2022. under the provisions of the rti act, the cpio is not supposed to create information and is not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. therefore, only such information as is available and held by the public authority can be provided as per the definition of “information” prescribed under section 2 (f) of the rti act. further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the cpio’s submissions, the commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगम आनंदी राम लंगमआनंदी राम लंगम आनंदी राम लंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना सूचनासूचना सूचना आयु आयुआयु आयु) दनांक/Date: 12.01.2024 Authenticated true copy Suman Bala (सुमन बाला) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties: