RTI Act does not obligate the CPIO to provide explanations or opinions beyond existing records; queries seeking clarification are outside its scope.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 “I, Rajasekaran L, hold a joint savings account (E or S) with my father in Indian Bank at Anakaputhur Branch. Our account number is ****5536. I was restricted access to withdrawal of funds from my account on 01st August 2024.

1. Explain in detail why did the branch staff restrict access to withdrawals from my account?

2. The Assistant Branch manager communicated to us that funds need to be withdrawn from our account mandatorily once in every 3-month period. Is this a valid reason?

3. Please justify the statement made by the Assistant branch manager by sharing the banking code procedure document.

4. Has this been published by the bank for review by the general public like us?

5. The Assistant branch manager communicated that the corporate office of Indian bank has sent several notices to our address in this regard. Please share copies of such notices sent to us…” etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.08.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

1. “Queries of the nature of seeking explanation / advice / clarification /interpretation / reasons/ etc. do not fall under the definition of "information" as per Sec 2(f) of RTI Act.

However, it is informed that the account is in dormant status due to non-operation for longer period, hence the withdrawal from the account was restricted by the system.

2. Queries of the nature of seeking explanation / advice / clarification /

interpretation / reasons/ etc. do not fall under the definition of "information" as per Sec 2(f) of RTI Act.

Further, it is informed that since your account was in dormant status the branch advised to operate the account periodically by always keeping the account in active status.

3. Query not clear.

However, seeking explanation / advice /clarification / justification / reasons/ etc.

do not fall under the definition of "information" as per Sec 2(f) of RTI Act.

4. The detailed instruction/information about Inoperative/Dormant accounts are available in our Bank's website www.indianbank.in. Please be guided accordingly.

5. Query not clear/specific as to what information pertaining to us is sought…” etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2024 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 01.10.2024.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Sreeja Rani, CM & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant insisted on relief to be ordered in respect of points 5 & 6 of the RTI Application.

7. The Respondent submitted that the information provided to the Appellant is as per the availability of records and it appears that the Appellant is assuming that some notices were sent to him, which is why the reply was provided accordingly.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, considering the fact that the RTI queries are in the nature of seeking for redressal of a grievance without asking for any specific record as envisaged under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretati