Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3141
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Archana Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Bank of India, Kanpur, UP – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/655623
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Archana Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Jugal Kishor
RTI applications can be denied based on confidentiality unless otherwise adjudicated.
Headnote:This appeal concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant seeking information regarding the declaration as a wilful defaulter by the Bank of India. The information was denied on grounds of confidentiality under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellate authority upheld the CPIO's decision, leading to the current appeal. The court finds no grounds for intervention as the matter has been previously adjudicated. The appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. scope of information denial under the rti act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appeal process and previous adjudication (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. hearing and representation in appeals (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 7) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
I Archana Kothari (now known as Archana Agarwal) was declared as a Wilful Defaulter by the Bank of India vide Order dated 19.04.2018 bearing Ref No. KMC: ADV:2018-19:006. In the said order dated 19.04.2018, there was a reference of the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Identification Committee of the Bank of India. Therefore, I request you to kindly provide the certified copy of the following information/documents/ details under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
1. Order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Identification Committee of Bank of India for declaring M/s. Kothari Foods & Fragrances Private Limited, Mr. Vikram Mansukhlal Kothari, Mrs. Sadhna Vikram Kothari, Mr. Rahul Vikram Kothari, Rotomac Global Private Limited, Mrs. Archana Kothari and Rotomac Polymers Private Limited as Wilful Defaulters.
2. Certified Copy of the entire proceedings including minutes of the Identification Committee determining M/s. Kothari Foods & Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. & Ors as Wilful Defaulters.
3. Certified Copy of the entire proceedings including minutes of the Review Committee who reviewed the order of the Identification Committee for the purpose of determining M/s. Kothari Foods & Fragrances Pvt Ltd. & Ors. as Wilful Defaulters.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
“You have asked for the documents/ information which are the part of the internal proceedings of the bank hence are highly private and confidential. Though the final outcome of such committee meetings has already been communicated to you and all other related parties.
Therefore, we are unable to provide you the said documents under the provisions of Section 8 (1)(d).”
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.08.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.08.2024 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 14.12.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Jugal Kishor, DZM, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that same identical RTI application has been decided by the Hon’ble Commission vide file no. CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/639945, and the direction given in the order had already been complied with by the CPIO on 17.06.2025.
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 has been decided by the Commission vide file no. CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/639945 and the CPIO concerned has also complied with the direction given in the said file. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
