Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2460
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Ashok Kumar Loomba – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/116986
For the Appellant: Ashok Kumar Loomba
For the Respondents: Mr. OPawan Kunmar Bhatiya, Mr. Nikhil Khanna
Requests for clarifications do not constitute 'information' under the RTI Act, limiting the obligation of a public authority to provide detailed responses.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Request for information under RTI concerning non-compliance of the Banking Ombudsman’s advisory by the Bank - The requests primarily sought clarifications and opinions which do not qualify as 'information' under the RTI Act. The CPIO provided responses but stated that the applicant's queries were not covered under the Act's definition of information. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Appeal Process - A public authority is not obligated to create information or provide opinions not available in the records. Disputes regarding the correctness of information furnished cannot be adjudicated in RTI proceedings. (Paras 2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant alleged non-compliance by Punjab National Bank with the advisory of the Banking Ombudsman and sought detailed interest calculations. The CPIO responded with available information but deemed some requests for clarification outside the RTI Act's definition.
Findings of Court:
The Commission held that the RTI applicant’s requests for clarification are not covered under Section 2(f), emphasizing the limits of the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the CPIO's responses constituted adequate compliance under the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that clarifications and opinions sought by the appellant exceed the statutory scope defined by the RTI Act.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for information under rti concerning banking ombudsman. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. clarifications do not meet the definition of information under the rti act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.12..2023 seeking information on the following points:
COMPLAINT TO OFFICE OF BANKING OMBUDSMAN DATED 24.04.2019 REGISTERED AS MAINTAINABLE COMPLAINT No: 201819007010753 (04.10753) EDUCATION LOAN ACCOUNT NUMBER ********8865 IN THE NAME OF ASHISH LOOMBA & ASHOK KUMAR LOOMBA.NON IMPLEMENTATION OF ADVISORY OF BANKING OMBUDSMAN AND MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION MEETING HELD ON 15.05.2019 AS AGREED BY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.
1. In the Advisory of Banking Ombudsman and minutes of Conciliation meeting dated 15.05.2019 the decision has specified the following areas where the concessions have to be provided to us by Punjab National Bank:
i) Bank to apply BR w.e.f. 1.7.2010 and MCLR w.e.f 1.4.2016 without charges.
ii) Bank to pass on the benefit of concession in interest as per terms of sanction and letter of arrangement. Bank cannot temper with the agreement irrespective of clarification sought after sanction.
iii) Penal interest charged be got refunded.……..
Though PNB has assured us and the Banking Ombudsman to 3 comply with the Advisory and decision taken and incorporated 5 in the minutes of conciliation meeting held on 15.05.2015 as stated but the same is not complied with till date despite our various emails to various authorities in Punjab national bank and the branch office 9 D, Chandigarh and only false compliance 5 has been given to Banking Ombudsman just to get our complaints closed, 1. Punjab National Bank has in various emails confirmed to the Banking Ombudsman in writing and in meetings the compliance of his Advisory dated
15.05.2019.
Copies of these emails have been provided to us by the office of Banking Ombudsman vide letter No:: BO (CHG)/(RBIND/R/P/21/00204)/682/2020-21 dated 11.02.2021 in reply our application under Right to Information.
1 (i) Please provide the Statement of Account with Calculations of interest as per advisory of the Banking Ombudsman and Minutes of the conciliation meeting dated 15.05.2019. Please inform the Interest Rate applied for making calculations of interest, period wise and how the same is arrived at/calculated with reference to item of Advisory as under:
i). BR w.e.f. 1.7.2010 and M.C.L.R w.e.f. 1.4.2016 without charges and ii). 1% benefit of concession as per sanction iii). Refund of penal interest.
1 (b) Please provide us i). Calculation sheets of interest and rates of interest applied while confirming compliance of Advisory of Banking Ombudsman dated 15.05. 2019 under different heads as stated in your emails given in 'Reference' as under:
iv). Email dated 17.10.2019 v). Email dated 20.12.2019
1 (b) ii).Please inform the action taken on advice issued by banking Ombudsman as mentioned in the reference (vi)
…, etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. 1 (i) Enclosed 1 (b) (i) Enclosed
1 (b) (ii) As per Calculation amount credited in loan account number ******0865.
2. 2 (1) Enclosed
2 (b) (i) 29-09-2022 (b) (ii) yes enclosed (c) no information is held on record. ....Etc.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.04.2024 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 24.05.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. OPawan Kunmar Bhatiya, CPIO and Mr. Nikhil Khanna, Sr. Law Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought copies of the statement of Account with Calculations of interest as per advis
