RTI applications must seek specific information within existing records; speculative inquiries fall outside the Act's scope.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Mathura Refinery Project (03540) Branch Manager dwara mujhe likhit roop mein btaya gaya hai ki mathura Refinery Project Branch IOCL ki captive Branch hai kripa Mujhe us letter aur niyam ki copy niyamanusaar dene ki kirpa karen jismen ye likha gaya hai ki mathura refinery project 03540 captive branch main jan dhan account bhi nahi khole jayenge

2. jis niyam aur letter mein likha hai ki mathura Refinery Project (03540) branch IOCL ki captive Branch hai is Branch se New Grahak Seva Kendra Ko Aprooval Nahin Diya Jaye Kripa Kar Mujhe Us Letter Aur Niyam Ki Copy Mujhe Niyamanusaar Dene Ki Kripa Karen

3. Meri Grahak Seva Kendra Ki File Main Aapki Or Se Kya Nirnay Liya Gaya Hai Aur Kis Aadhar Par Liya Gaya Hai Uski Copy Mujhe Niyamanusaar Dene Ki Kripa Karen

4. Aapki Mathura Refinery Project Branch Mein Pradhanmantri Jan Dhan Account Nahin Khole Jate Hain Wo Karan Spasht Kar Likhit Roop Se Niyamanusaar Dene Ki Kripa Karen

5. Mathura Refinery Project Branch Mein Pradhanmantri Jan Dhan Account Nahin Khulenge Wo Letter Ya Niyam Ki Copy Mujhe Niyamanusaar Dene Ki Kripa Karen”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1. “There is no such instruction laid down by the bank.

2. There is no such instruction laid down by the bank.

3. As informed by the branch vide their letter dated 21.02.2024 (copy enclosed), there is no requirement of CSP at present and hence your application has been rejected.

4. The information sought is in the nature of seeking explanation/ clarification and hence doesn't come under the purview of definition of information as per section

2(f) of the RTI Act 2005.

5. There is no such instruction laid down by the bank.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 01.06.2024 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 16.06.2024.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, S S Dahiya, DM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he has been provided with misleading information by the CPIO.

7. The Respondent submitted that the RTI Application is in the nature of a grievance petition and it has been replied to as per the availability of information.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the RTI Application does not seek information as envisaged under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, rather seeks answers to hypothetical queries. The CPIO has nonetheless provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Complainant 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.

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 RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to