O R D E R

(19.09.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.11.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 16.07.2020 and first appeal dated 31.08.2020 :-

(cid:1) Please furnish information about basis/grounds of appointment of P.O. a law graduate to present the case of applicant when the request of engaging of legal practioner in D.E. was denied by the C&CA. The applicant was an ordinary science graduate without any knowledge of law & legislation.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 16.07.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, Nagpur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.08.2020 The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated

10.11.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.11.2020 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeal dated 10.11.2020 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri G.K.Kale, CPIO and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava, FA, Vidharbha Konkan Graming Bank, Nagpur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that after receipt of hearing notice they had searched the records and found that reply was not given to the appellant. Therefore, after receipt of hearing notice they had replied to the RTI application vide letter dated 25.08.2022 wherein it was informed that grounds of appointment of P.O. were judicial capacity and hence bank was not in a position to provide the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that information sought was vague and in the nature of reasons/grounds/basis which did not exist in the form of material records. The respondent would either have to create the grounds or provide clarification based on the hypothetical situations and allegations brought by the appellant in his RTI applications. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of

2011; dated 09.08.2011 may be relied upon:

“….A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant. The reference to ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ in the definition of ‘information’ in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority.…...”

In view of the above, no further interference of the Commission is required in the matter. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) ( )

सरु ेश च(cid:3)ं ा

Information Commissioner ( )

सचू ना आय(cid:8)ु

/Date: 19.09.2022 (cid:11)दनांक Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( . )

आर सीताराम मूत(cid:28)

Dy. Registrar ( )

उप पजं ीयक

011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, "CHANDRAPRASTHA"