2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2954
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
S. RAJESHKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank – Respondent
CIC/IOVBK/A/2023/618931
Public authorities under the RTI Act are not required to provide information that necessitates drawing inferences or assumptions, only existing information must be disclosed.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - RTI application seeking information on PMEGP loan scheme - Appellant's queries deemed unspecific and speculative - CPIO's response referenced earlier similar application - FAA provided point-wise clarification - Supreme Court judgment referenced clarifying scope of information under RTI Act. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Information under RTI - Public authority not obliged to provide advice or opinion, only existing information - Drawing inferences or assumptions not required. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking various details regarding the PMEGP loan scheme, including guidelines and time frames for decision-making. The CPIO responded by referring to a previous application, and the FAA provided clarifications. The Appellant subsequently filed a Second Appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the queries to be unspecific and speculative, emphasizing that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide inferences or opinions.
Issues: The main issues included whether the queries were specific enough to warrant a response under the RTI Act and the obligations of public authorities in providing information.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RTI Act does not obligate public authorities to provide information that requires drawing inferences or assumptions, and that only existing information must be disclosed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
- (i) “Provide me a copy of the order or circular or information in any other way to issued by your public authority for to take action by branch level banks on PMEGP loan scheme application.
- (ii) Please give me the information about the time frame for IOB branch level banks to take decision on PMEGP loan scheme application.
- (iii) Provide me a copy of the order or circular or information in any other way to issued by your public authority to give priority in sanctioning the PMEGP scheme applications.
- (iv) Provide me a copy of the order or circular or information in any other way to issued by your public authority to fix interest rates for PMEGP loan schemes.
- (v) Please provide me a copy of the guidelines issued by your public authority for not to insist on collateral security for PMEGP loan scheme applications up to Rs.10 lakhs Remittance to Bank by Implementing Agencies…” etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
- “We have already disposed of your RTI application dated 18.01.2023 containing same queries on 14.02.2023.
- Copy of our reply dated 14.02.2023 is enclosed.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 31.03.2023 observed as under:
- (i) “Our Branches are advised to follow the PMEGP guidelines and it is available in public domain in KVIC portal under https://kviconline.gov.in/pmegpeportal/pmegphome/index.jso (ii) The disposal of MSE applications as per SME policy guidelines. TAT for New/Enhancement applicant limit up to 2 Lakhs within 2 weeks, above 2 lakhs and up to 5 lakhs within 4 weeks and above 25 lakhs is Within a reasonable frame of time.
- (iii) There is no circular in this regard. Moreover, Branch Manager/Sanctioning Authority is empowered to take credit decision based on due diligence conducted and viability of the project.
- (iv) Rate of Interest on PMEGP loan is applicable based on quantum of loan and nature of activity.
- (v) Our Bank is following RBI guidelines and loan up to Rs. 10.00 lakh being sanctioned without collateral security/third party guarantee, coverage under CGTMSE/CGFMU is mandatory…” etc.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.04.2023.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Mahalakshmi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and emphasized on the point-wise reply provided by the FAA, nonetheless.
7.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application does not strictly conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised unspecific and speculative queries. Yet, while the CPIO’s reply referred to an earlier response provided to a similar RTI Application, the FAA in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act has provided a point-wise clarification. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
- “2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information