Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2741
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Shankar Poddar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Punjab National Bank, Midnapore – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2024/102605
For the Appellant: Shankar Poddar
For the Respondents: Mr. Pramod Kumar
Public authorities are not obliged to provide reasons or justifications for actions taken, only existing information as outlined by the RTI Act.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Definition of information - Application filed seeking reasons and clarifications rather than information as per RTI Act was deemed unacceptable by the Commission - The respondent provided available information - Supreme Court guidelines highlight limitations on the obligation of public authorities regarding provision of reasons or justifications. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking reasons for debited amounts from the bank account and information regarding cheque transactions, which were not provided adequately by the CPIO.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the request did not conform with the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as it sought clarifications, not information.
Issues: Whether the information sought fits the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act, focusing on the limitation imposed on public authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that public authorities are not obligated to provide reasons for actions taken or not taken and can refuse requests that require drawing inferences or making assumptions. (Paras 7)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of rti application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. hearing and representation (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. limitation of information definition (Para 7 , 8) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please inform me the reason for which an amount of Rs. 236/- has been debited from my account being no. ******8413 (PNB, M/s Sai Complex, INDA, OT Road, Kharagpur-721305, IFSC Code: PUNBO168710) on 03-04-2023.
2. Please inform me on which date the recipient of the account payee has submitted the A/c payee cheque in her bank. Please also inform me the aforesaid A/c payee cheque details and name of Bank, address of the payee and her account number.
3. Please inform me as to the reason MOUSUMI BISWASORD mentioned vide cheque no. 887896 & 887897 in the Savings Passbook wherein no such name is mentioned in the aforesaid Cheques.
4. Please state me if any cheque submitted by the payee to his/her Bank after validity of the same from the date of issue in that event can a Bank authority may impose a penalty in terms of cost to the sender.
If so, please supply me the relevant copy of said rule for such a penalty.
5. Please inform me can a Bank authority receive the invalid cheque (ie after three months from the date of issue) from the payee. .....etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
1. Charges was deducted by system due to return of Cheque no 887895 & 887894 under reason No 31(Instrument outdated /Stale).
2. We do not have data regarding cheque deposited date at her bank, However the cheque received at our clearing centre through CTS platform vide our inward clearing on 03.04.2023 as presented by SBI Narkeldanga. Details of payee not available with us.
3. All these cheques issued in favour of "Mousumi Podder Nee Biswas
4. Payee has liberty to deposit the cheque as per his/her prerogative and bank will consider it if cheque in question is/are in order and valid, otherwise return the same with specifying the reason of reason of return and attributable charges would be deducted as per norms of Bank/RBL
5. Payee has liberty to deposit the cheque as per his/her prerogative and bank will consider it if cheque in question is/are in order and valid, otherwise return the same with specifying the reason of reason of return, etc.”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 18.09.2023 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 18.01.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Pramod Kumar, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 24.07.2023 and submitted that all relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. Moreover, in second appeal, the appellant has sought some clarification based on the above said reply of the CPIO.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the instant RTI Application does not seek information as per the definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather the appellant has sought reasons and clarification and yet the CPIO has provided a clarification in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the
