RTI requests must seek specific information; hypothetical inquiries are not covered under the Act.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Kindly provide me with the information regarding the process followed by a branch of Canara Bank when vacating a leased premises, especially when there are 3 landlords.

2. Provide me with the information on the standard notice period required to be followed by any branch of Canara Bank for notifying landlords about their physical presence at day of vacant possession.

3. During vacant possession, do you require the presence as well as signature of all 3 landlords? And is there any other additional paperwork or process that requires the physical presence of all 3 landlords of the said leased property.

4. Provide clarity that is it mandatory for all the 3 landlords to be present at the time of vacant possession? And if even 1 of the 3 landlords isn't present, does the bank send any form of written communication regarding the confirmation of a successful vacant possession to the absent landlord.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Point No. 1: Due vacation notice as per the sanction terms is given in advance to the landlords against acknowledgement. While surrendering the building 'No Claim Letter' and acknowledgement is obtained from the landlord/s.

Point No. 2: Standard Notice period is 3 months for vacation of premises. However, notice of vacation as per the terms of lease deed is given to the landlord/s of the building.

Point No. 3 & 4: The of information sought by you is in nature seeking clarification/ opinion/explanation from the PIO on a hypothetical scenario, whereas the PIO can only provide the information available on record in material form. Hence, it does not fall under the purview of information as defined under section 2f of RTI Act, 2005. Please provide specific details to enable this PIO to collect and furnish the information materially available.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 02.07.2024 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 30.07.2024.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sumit Kumar Singh, DM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that considering the clarification based queries in the RTI Application as well as the fact that no specific record has been sought for by the Appellant as envisaged under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, no infirmity is found in the CPIO’s reply.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.