Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1069
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Himadri Shekhar Bhattacharjee – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/614287
The RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide justifications or opinions, only existing information, and failure to respond timely constitutes a violation.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) and Section 7 - Non-response to RTI applications - Appellant sought information regarding pension claims and rectification of allowances - CPIO failed to provide timely responses, leading to deemed refusal - The Commission found that the information sought did not fall under the definition of 'information' as per the Act - CPIO directed to explain non-compliance and potential penalties for violations. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) RTI Act - Scope of information - The Act does not obligate public authorities to provide justifications or opinions, only existing information. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Judicial precedents - The Commission referenced judgments clarifying the scope of information under the RTI Act, emphasizing that justifications are not covered. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed multiple RTI applications seeking information on pension claims and allowances, alleging non-responsiveness from the CPIO. The CPIO denied knowledge of responses provided online.
Findings of Court:
The Commission determined that the CPIO's failure to respond constituted a violation of the RTI Act, directing him to appear and explain the discrepancies.
Issues: The main issues included the failure of the CPIO to respond to RTI applications and the interpretation of 'information' under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RTI Act does not require public authorities to provide justifications or inferences, only existing information, and emphasized the CPIO's obligation to respond timely.
Result: Appeals disposed of accordingly.
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/614861
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
“I have been submitting prayers for rectification of the non inclusion of my entitlement of fixed personal allowance with my salary since 28th February 2018 and also, submitted quite a number of representations to the human resource management division of the circle office of the bank, south 24 parganas, WB.
Sir, though copies of detailed guidelines and circulars of the bank, enclosed with my representations, justifying my claim along with arrear payments and explained about the urgency of its rectification in view of my impending superannuation and my financial obligation since, my ailing nonagenarian mother is completely dependent on me for her medical eventualities and I will be having only my pension income and interest income to meet my financial commitments post my superannuation. In the meantime, I have superannuated with effect from 30th November 2018.
So, information is hereby desired why my genuine claim is not being entertained, and dilly dallying being made and that should be a reasoned reply referring to banks applicable guidelines and circulars.”
1.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 28.01.2023. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
1.2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.03.2023 Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/614287
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
“Self-attested para wise status as on date, of rectification of my representations on several anomalies existing in calculations of my pensionary benefits and emoluments, vide my letter dated: 15th December 2022, submitted to the circle office, south 24 parganas, West Bengal, a copy of the same uploaded herein without annexures, due to size constraints.
Also, copies of banks guidelines, circulars etc. to be enclosed therein in support of status/decisions conveyed therein.”
2.1. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 06.02.2023 FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.
2.2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.03.2023
3. The Appellant was represented by Sampa Roy through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, S Balaji, CM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The Rep. of the Appellant stated that no information has been received from the Respondent till date in the matter(s).
5. Upon enquiring about the copy of the online replies filed in the e-book of both cases, neither party claimed ownership. The record of the online RTI portal showed that the RTI Application referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/614861 was disposed of by CPIO, S Balaji on 28.03.2024 after it was forwarded to him on 27.12.2022 and RTI Application referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2023/614287 was disposed of by CPIO, S Balaji on 09.04.2024 after it was forwarded to him on 02.01.2023.
6. The bench was baffled to note that the Respondent i.e. S Balaji, CM & CPIO not only denied having linked any such dak in the records of the Commission but even denied having been designated as a CPIO at the time of the replies shown to be furnished on 28.03.2024 and 09.04.2024. The persistent submission of the CPIO was that he was not aware of any reply provided to these RTI Application(s) and that he was not the then CPIO.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the claim of the Appellant to have not received any reply/information is not tenable as the reply to the RTI Application(s) was provided through the online portal as per the records and therefore there
