के቎ኚरीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,ग मुननरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/109215 R. D. Rao … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: SBI, Rewari …्ቚनतवािीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2022 seeking information pertaining to the Civil suit dated 26.11.2015 filed by him in the Hon’ble Civil Court (S.

D) Rewari on the following points:

(A) “ If the Chief General Manager himself signed the vakalatnama dated 08-01-

2016/08-04-2016 as defendant No. 3 then the attested copy of his specimen signature.

(B) If the Chief General Manager had authorized the other bank official to sign the said vakalatnama on-his behalf as defendant No. 3 in the suit mentioned above then attested photocopy of that authorization letter. The name and designation of that bank official who has signed the valkalatnama on his behalf, along with the attested copy of his/her signatures.

(C) Whether the Chief General Manager himself filed the written statement as defendant No. 3 or has authorized other bank official to file the written statement on his behalf then the attested photocopies of the written statement as well as the attested photocopy of the authority letter.

(D) The official color of the ink used by the Chief General Manager.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Point (A) - As per Our Bank record, the Chief General Manager was not signed the vakalatnama dated 08.01.2016/08-04-2016 as defendant No 3.

Point (B) - No such records are available in our office and available at concerned Hon'ble court. As per Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005, only such information can be provided which exists in the record.

Point (C) - Please refer to point no B.

Point (D) - As per Section 2(f) of RTI Act-2005, only such information can be provided which exists in the record. It is beyond the scope of act to create information or to interpret information or to solve problems, queries or to furnish replies to hypothetical question.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.10.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.11.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.02.2023.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Radhey Shyam, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the CPIO has deliberately denied the information by misinterpreting provision under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. He argued that the vakalatnama & written statement were filed in the Hon’ble Civil Court (S. D) Rewari and he claimed that it proved beyond doubt that the Chief Gen. Manager had authorized the Bank Official to sign the Vakalatnama & written statement & to contest this civil suit on his behalf. Therefore, it may be assumed that the authorization letter was part of the bank’s records and by denying the said information, the CPIO violated the provisions of the RTI Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that although the appellant had sought confirmation through his RTI Application in the form of questionnaire, they had confirmed that ‘Chief General Manager was not signed the vakalatnama dated 08.01.2016/08-04-2016 as defendant No 3.’. Further, the CPIO stated that the answers to the questions raised in the RTI application could not be addressed under the RTI Act.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both p