Central Information CommissionSamir Sardana vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 November, 2021Author:Suresh ChandraBench:Suresh Chandraके   ीय सूचना आयोग\n                                   Central Information Commission\n                                      बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका\n                                    Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka\n                                    नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067\n\nिशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/BKOBD/C/2019/644073\n\nSamir Sardana                                                    ...िशकायतकता/Complainant\n\n                                             VERSUS\n                                              बनाम\n\n\nCPIO: Bank of Baroda\nBandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai                                     ... ितवादीगण /Respondents\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the complaint:\n\nRTI : 29.04.2019                    FA      : 27.06.2019           Complaint : 27.06.2019\nCPIO : 12.07.2019 &\n                                    FAO : 20.08.2019               Hearing      : 18.08.2021\n09.09.2019\n\n                                              CORAM:\n                                        Hon'ble Commissioner\n                                      SHRI SURESH CHANDRA\n                                             ORDER(01.11.2021)1.          The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his\ncomplaint dated 17.06.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI\napplication dated 28.04.2019 are as under:-(i)       Impose maximum penalty on the PIO underSection 20 (1)of the RTI Act.(ii)      Dismissal of the PIO on account of illegal, deliberate, malafide action and under the Bank\n               of Baroda Service Rules. .(iii)     Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (underSection 20(2)of the RTI Act,\n               2005.Page 1 of 25(iv)      Recommendation to the Ministry of Finance, for administrative action and/strictures,\n               against the PIO.(v)       Direct the Respondents to refund the application fee paid by Complainant while submitting\n               RTI Application, as per section (7) (6) of theRTI Act.(vi)      Invoke its powers under theRTI Actto issue any other direction or recommendation as it\n               may deem appropriate.(vii)     Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal\n               Report of the Respondents for defying the provisions of the Act.(viii) Compensation to the complainant for pecuniary and other loss.2.          Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated\n28.04.2019 under theRight to Information Act, 2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public\nInformation Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, seeking following information:(i)         Wilful Defaulters\n               • PIO to confirm that it can provide the photos of the wilful defaulters of the\n                  bank(ii)        NPA\n               • PIO to provide the details of NPA, in excess of Rs 35 crores, as at December\n                  31,2018, as under:o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of\n                          Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who\n                          provided Personal Guarantees.• PIO to identify the NPA which had submitted testimonials, citations and\n                  recommendations from serving MP/MLAs and Constitutional Functionaries at\n                  the time of the loan sanction (in the last 7 years)Page 2 of 25(iii)   NPA Analytics\n          • PIO identify within the above NPA list, the NPA accounts wherein fraud has\n             been identified by the banker (in the last 7 years),at any of the following\n             stages :o Loan Sanction\n                o Securities and Guarantees at the time of sanction of loan\n                o Asset Purchases and Usage by the Borrower\n                o Submission of SOA to Banker after purchase of assets\n                o Certifications by CAs/Surveyors etc.\n                o Falsification of accounts\n                o Diversion of funds from operations\n                o False representations for working capital limits and DP\n          • If the PIO cannot identify the abovesaid fraud cases,in the abovesaid NPA\n             list, but instead, it has a separate list of loan accounts,wherein fraud was\n             identified (in the last 7 years) and which are also NPAs or Doubtful or loss\n             accounts , the PIO can provide the said list as under:\n                o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of\n                   Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who\n                   provided Personal Guarantees\n          • PIO to confirm that the banker had engaged any Forensic Auditor\n             (irrespective of who paid the fees) or Directed the engagement of a forensic\n             auditor or instructed the borrower to engage a Forensic Auditor (in the last 7\n             years) w.r.t its loan,NPA activities\n                o If Yes, the date of the engagement and the name of the Forensic Auditor\n                o If Yes, the names of the NPA and/or sectors covered in the Forensic\n                   Audit assignment\n          • W.r.t. the loan accounts of the Bank, PIO to provide the details of the FIR and\n             chargesheet filed in the last 7 years, w.r.t. the loan processes, activities and\n             transactions as under:Page 3 of 25o Year of FIR, FIR No. Department (Crime Branch etc) and Station,\n                   Name of Borrower,Name of Directors and Promoters of Borrower,\n                   Names of Bank staff named in FIR\n                o Year of Chargesheet, Chargesheet No., Department (Crime Branch etc)\n                   and Station, Name of Borrower, Name of Directors and Promoters of\n                   Borrower, Names of Bank staff named in Chargesheet\n          • PIO to confirm that it has data w.r.t. credit facilities granted by the banker to\n             borrowers whose manufacturing operations are within a proximity of 300-500\n             kms of the manufacturing operations of the NPA of the same bank (for credits\n             granted in the last 5 years)(iv)   Loss, doubtful or written off loans\n          • PIO to provide the details of Doubtful and Loss accounts, in excess of Rs 20\n             crores, as at December 31, 2018, as under:o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of\n                   Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who\n                   provided Personal Guarantees\n          • PIO to provide the details of Loan accounts wherein the Promoters are\n             absconding, at December 31, 2018, as under:o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of\n                   Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who\n                   provided Personal Guarantees\n          • PIO to provide the details of Loan accounts wherein the Promoters are not\n             traceable, at December 31, 2018, as under:o Name of Borrower, Amount of O/s Loan, Location of Assets, Name of\n                   Directors and Promoters of Borrower Entity and Name of Persons who\n                   provided Personal Guarantees\n          • PIO to provide the details of the loans accounts written off by the bank from\n             the Reserves or Capital Profits or Provisions or the Profit and Loss Account,\n             as under :o Aggregate amount in the last 5 years (year by year)Page 4 of 25o Borrower name and amount for sums more than or equal to Rs 5 crores(v)    Financing supply chain of banks\n          • PIO to confirm if the Bank is allowed to finance the supply chain of its NPA\n             borrowers - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or regular basis\n                 o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s\n                     as at December, 31, 2019\n          • PIO to confirm if it acutally finances the supply chain of its NPA borrowers -by fund or non fund based limits on an ad hoc or regular basis\n                 o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s\n                     as at December, 31, 2019\n          • PIO to confirm if the Bank is allowed to finance the supply chain of the NPA\n             borrowers of other Banks - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or\n             regular basis\n                 o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s\n                     as at December, 31, 2019\n          • PIO to confirm if it acutally finances the supply chain of the NPA borrowers\n             of other Banks - by fund or non fund based limits - on an ad hoc or regular\n             basis\n                 o If Yes, the PIO to provide the aggregate amount of such financing o/s\n                     as at December, 31, 2019(vi)    CDR/OTS\n          • PIO to provide the details of CDR/OTS done by the bank in the last 7 years,\n             as under:o Year\n                 o Name of Borrower (CDR/OTS Account)\n                 o Amount of NPA\n                 o Settlement taken by Sundry Creditors\n          • PIO to identify within the above, the cases wherein the creditors have\n             acquired the NPA(vii)   NPA TurnaroundPage 5 of 25• PIO to confirm that it has data to identify the NPA who are operating as Job\n                  workers or Contract Manufacturers (wherein 35-50% of the aggregate\n                  production of the NPA is from Job work etc., or where 35-50% of the Gross\n                  Margin is derived from Job Work)\n              • PIO to confirm that the banker had engaged any consultant (irrespective of\n                  who paid the consultant fees) or directed the engagement of a consultant or\n                  instructed the borrower to engage a consultant to assess options to salvage,\n                  turnaround, recover NPAs (in the last 7 years)\n                     o If Yes, the date of the engagement and the name of the consultant\n                     o If Yes, the names of the NPA and/or sectors covered in the Consultant\n                        assignment\n         • PIO to confirm the dates and location of the meetings held with other banks to\n            make, discuss or execute a strategy to recover NPA (in the last 30 months) as\n            under:o Name of Bankers and Dates of Meeting(viii)     Adhoc Limits\n         • Adhoc Fund Based and Non-Fund Based limits sanctioned by the banker to\n            borrowers (in the last 7 years), wherein the banker was not the lead banker or\n            consortium banker, as under:o Year of Sanction - Name of Borrower - Type of Limit(ix)      FX\n         • Loss incurred by the bank in the last 7 years on account of FX Derivatives\n            Products, as under :o Unrecoverables on account of Counterparty default and Counterparty Risk\n                o Losses due to market movements on open positions or limited hedge positions(x)      Gifts, donations/DEA Fund and Commissions\n         • Value of gifts and souvenirs provided by the bank, in the last 7 years, as undero To Ministers\n                o To Politicans\n                o To Other Constitutional FunctionariesPage 6 of 25o To Bureaucrats\n             o To Senior Management\n             o To Other Persons\n       • PIO to confirm the value of donations and grants made to charities, NGOs and\n          other entities, individuals and organisations in the last 7 years, as under:\n             o Year of said donation\n             o Person to whom the said grant was made\n       • PIO to provide the amount of Commission paid on Deposits secured by the banker\n          in the last 7 years, as under :o Year and Amount\n       • PIO to provide the amount of fund transferred to the RBI DEA Fund in the last 7\n          years (year by year)(xi)     Demo/GST\n       • PIO to confirm if it has done any analysis in terms of a discussion report, analytics\n          report, NPA recovery meeting to identify accounts that became NPA due to DEMO\n          and GST\n       • PIO to provide the amount of counterfeit currency deposited in the bank during the\n          Demo drive of the GOI\n       • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts opened\n          upto 1 month before the Demo drive of the GOI\n       • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts opened\n          upto 1 month after the Demo drive of the GOI\n       • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts\n          designated as Jan Dhan and other accounts, for Economically Weak Sections of\n          Society during the Demo drive of the GOI\n       • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts in\n          Branches designated as Agri-Credit branches during the Demo drive of the GOI\n       • PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts\n          designated as Agriculturists/Farmers and Agri Traders during the Demo drive of\n          the GOIPage 7 of 25• PIO to provide the aggregate amount of funds deposited in bank accounts\n           designated as for the Gems and Jewellery Sector during the Demo drive of the GOI(xii)      Limitation and NPA Sales\n     • PIO to provide the value and sector profile of the NPAs sold by the Bank, in the last\n           7 years, as under:o Year and Sector - and within the same, the following:o NPA Value\n                o Sale Value\n     • Provide the names of the borrowers and the amounts due w.r.t accounts where\n           debtors/loan/credit recovery was barred by limitation (since 2010)\n              o (If the information is available on the Bank website or other portal - PIO to\n                  direct the RTI Applicant to the same)(xiii)     Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers\n     • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the account holders are dormant (as of\n           December 31, 2018)\n     • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the activity in the lockers is Nil for more\n           than 10 years (as of December 31, 2018)\n     • The aggregate number of lockers wherein the activity in the lockers is Nil for more\n           than 20 years (as of December 31, 2018)\n     • PIO to provide the ageing schedule of all unclaimed deposits with the bank - in the\n           aggregate (in the manner available with the bank) (as of December 31,2018)(xiv)      EB\n     • PIO to confirm that any 2nd Appeal or Complaint related to the Bank is pending\n           with the CIC related to the beneficial owners and/or beneficiaries of the Electoral\n           Bonds issued by the Bank\n\n  The CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2019 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with that,\n  the complainant filed first appeal dated 27.06.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide\n  order dated 20.08.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the First AppellatePage 8 of 25Authority order, the complainant filed a complaint dated 27.06.2019 before this\nCommission which is under consideration.3.      The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 27.06.2019 inter alia on the\ngrounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant requested the\nCommission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action\nas perSection 20 (1)of the RTI Act.4.    The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.07.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-(i) "List of wilful defaulters is being published from time to time and is available on our\nbank's official website under public domain which can be accessed by the following link:https://www.bankofbaroda.com/wilful-defaulter.htm.(ii) 1. Information sought by the appellant relates to third party personal information,\ndisclosure of which is exempted as per the provisions ofSection 8(1) (j)of RTI Act, 2005.2.    Such data is not complied and available in material form, hence cannot be provided.(iii) 1. No such information is exempted and available in material forms. Hence cannot be\nprovided.2. Information sought is confidential in nature, hence the disclosure is exempted under the\nprovisions ofSection 8(1) (d)of RTI Act, 2005. However, fraud cases during last 7 years is\nas under:Financial Year                 No. of fraud account           Amount (Rs. In crs)\n2012-13                        65                             408.93\n2013-14                        113                            430.15\n2014-15                        154                            1144.61\n2015-16                        133                            1471.79\n2016-17                        100                            803.87\n2017-18                        83                             2257.79\n2018-19                        124                            3653.30Page 9 of 25Total                          772                            10170.443. Forensic audit is undertaken as per the need/requirement/guidelines on case to case\nbasis. Detailed account wise information is not compiled/available in material form\ncentrally.4. According to the Reserve Bank of India, complaints are lodged against the fraudsters in\nCBI/local police for investigation on the basis of amount involved. Details requested are\nnot available in material form, hence cannot be provided.5. No such data is compiled by the bank.(iv) 1. Information sought by the appellant relates to third party personal information,\ndisclosure of which is exempted as per the provisions ofSection 8(1) (j)of RTI Act, 2005.\nHowever, as on 31.03.2019 total number of accounts under doubtful and loss category are\n384652 and total outstanding balance is Rs. 39218 Crs.2 & 3 Such data is not available in material form, hence cannot be provided.4. (i) & (ii) Bank has not specifically waived any amount (Rs. 5 Crs or more) except in the\nindividual cases where compromise settlements are sanctioned as per Bank's policy.(v) Information sought by the appellant pertains to different subject matter and underSection 6(1)of RTI Act, every RTI application must accompany with fee as prescribed.\nFurther, CIC in the matter ofShri Siddhartha Sar v/s LIC of Indiadated 17th May 2012 has\nheld that "it is not proper to the applicant under RTI to bundle a series of request into one\napplication unless these requests are treated separately and paid accordingly".(vi) 1&2 Such data is not available in material form, hence cannot be provided.(vii) 1&2 No such data is maintained.3. No such data is compiled centrally.Page 10 of 25(viii) 1. Details of assets sold to Assets Reconstruction Company (ARC) during last 7 years\nis provided.2. No such data is compiled.(ix) Does not pertain to their bank".The FAA vide order dated 20.08.2019 directed the CPIO to provide the revised\ninformation on point no. 1 of the RTI application and further agreed with the views taken\nby the CPIO on remaining points/issues. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide\nletter dated 09.09.2019 provided revised information against point no. 1 and provided total\nnumber of account along with outstanding amount to the complainant.5.     The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri D.C.Khanna, PRO, Bank of\nBaroda, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.5.1.   The complainant inter alia submitted that most of the information sought by the\ncomplainant was rejected by the respondent arbitrarily on the pretext of multiple\nqueries/subjects. The respondent had not provided specific reasons or rationale while\nrefusing the information. He further stated that most of the information sought was\nprovided by the other banks as it submitted to the RBI and was also accessible at the press\nof a button or a command through the bank ERP. Further he stated that grounds taken by\nthe CPIO that information sought was not available in the format it was sought was a\nblatant illegal. The information had been sought through e-format or can be accessed in a\nfew minutes on a CD and it would not divert resources. The complainant further contended\nthat the information was sought in the interest of transparency, accountability and larger\npublic interest. Therefore, he requested that his complaint may be allowed in terms of\nprayer. Moreover, his complaint may be converted and considered as second appeal and\nthe relief for providing the information may be granted. He complainant further stated that\nhe had also filed a first appeal before filing a complaint before the Commission and as per\nthe guidelines available in the web portal of the CIC, the Commission may pass direction\nto the CPIO to provide the information while hearing a complaint in case first appeal was\nalso filed by the complainant.Page 11 of 255.2.   The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that all the available\ninformation was supplied to the complainant. They stated that information sought\nregarding Willful Defaulters, NPA and NPA Analytics, Loan, Defaulters, turnaround or\nwritten off loans, CDS/OTS, NPA turnaround, Limitation an NPA sales was provided by\nthe then CPIO. They further submitted that information sought regarding Financial supply\nchain of banks, FX, Gifts, Donations, Lockers, EB was rejected on the ground that it\npertained to different subjects matter for which separate fee was to be paid as prescribed\nunder theRTI Act. It was also information that most of the information sought was not\nmaintained and such data could not be created or collated for the purposes of responding to\nhis RTI application. It was also stated that information sought was not specific,\nvoluminous, about various subjects and scattered in various offices and departments,\ncollection of the same would disproportionate divert the resources of the bank.6.     The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing\nboth the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied to the RTI\napplication dated 29.04.2019 on 12.07.2019 and 09.09.2019. Before dwelling upon the\ncomplaint some of the relevant cases may be discussed.6.1.InMr. K.S. Vasudevan vs Ministry of Law and Justice [CIC/SS/A/2011/000828], the\nappellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2010 seeking the following information:"1(a) Whether it is mandatory and compulsory to continue the proceedings initiated by the\n       Department when the criminal case is pending before any court of law against those\n       officers;1(b) Whether the judgments cited are binding on the Department or not;\n       2(i) If yes, then whether instructions have been issued by the Law Ministry to other\n       Departments for keeping such cases in abeyance or not; and\n       2(ii) If not please cite the rules under which the Departmental proceedings can be\n       conducted over-riding the above judgments."The Commission while disposing of the second appeal vide its decision dated 09.09.2011\nmade the following observations:"4. After hearing the respondent and on perusal of relevant documents, the Commission\n       observes that the appellant sought legal opinion from respondent; the same is not coveredPage 12 of 25within the ambit of the definition of 'information' aslaid down inSection 2(f)of the RTI\n       Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of respondent."6.2.InSarojini      Devi      vs.    Life     Insurance       Corporation       of     India\n[CIC/LICOI/A/2017/1769933-BJ], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2017\nseeking information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice of LIC in\nview of the Supreme Court Judgment which had held in 2014 that no Government\nDepartment/ Government Corporation will applyPublic Premises Act (PP Act) to\nprotected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under\ntrial by LIC Estate Officer underPP Actwhich had been discharged/ cancelled by LIC and\npremises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme\nCourt Judgment, etc.The Commission vide its decision dated 05.04.2019 while disposing\nof the second appeal and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in\nKhanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil)\nNo.34868 OF 2009 (decided on January 4, 2010) made the following observations.6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-\n       mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report,\n       papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information\n       relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n       law for the time being in force."This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n       information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law.\n       Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices,\n       circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions,\n       advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not\n       before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. UnderSection 6of the\n       RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the\n       "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by\n       the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he\n       have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any\n       reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish\n       the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.DECISION:Page 13 of 25Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no\n       further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."6.3.InMr. B. Venkateswara Rao vs. CPIO, Andhra Bank [CIC/SG/A/2012/001449], the\nRTI appellant filed an application dated 04.11.2011 seeking the following information:"1.Does it not expedient for the bank authorities concerned to verify and ensure that\n       everything is in the points after the customer leaves the locker room?2. In the period 1-10-11 to 28-10-2011 no efforts to have been evinced to notice the fact of\n       tempering of the locker. Can the reasons for this lapse on the part of the concerned\n       authorities be permissible as per bank's statutory rules?3. Does it not require causing an immaculate intensive check of all the locking devices and\n       ensuring safety in a foolproof manner by the Banking officials concerned just before they\n       leave precincts of the Bank each day?4. Are there any specific rules allowing the bank authorities to engage an unauthorized\n       mechanic for the purpose?5. Had there been strict surveillance of the bank officials concern throughout the operation\n       or this repaired word?6. Are there any rules under Bank's Statute to allow a private person in the locker room\n       without the surveillance of the bank officials?"The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide its\ndecision dated 27.06.2012:"The Appeal is partially allowed. The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the\n       Manual/Rules as directed above to the Appellant before 15 July 2012."6.4.   In Shri Fasih Akhtar vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office [CIC/CC/A/2015/002259],\nthe appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2014 seeking information on four points:"(i) date of receipt of letter which was sent to the Prime Minister's Office;(ii) what action has been taken by the PMO on his representation dated 8-9-2014 relating\n       to prohibition of cow slaughtering;Page 14 of 25(iii) what is the reason why the Prime Minister did not convey congratulations on the\n       occasion of Eid Day to the Muslim community; and(iv) it is against the Constitutional Rights that on the occasion of Hindu festivals Prime\n       Minister conveys congratulations but on the festive occasion of Muslim he does not."The Commission while disposing of the appeal while disposing of the appeal vide its\ndecision dated 30.08.2016 held:"The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of"6.5.InGovind Mittal vs. CPIO, National Highway Authority of India, Faridabad\n[CIC/SS/A/2012/003439] the appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.07.2010 seeking\ninformation on 3 points:"(1) provide information that on how much distance should heconstruct the boundary of hi\n       s HouseKothi No: 69 which is situated at Gandhi\n       Nagar, Agra, U.P near to Highway no: 2 because at present he permission to\n       construct boundary of his house at 82 feet away from the main Road of the\n       Highway no. 2 from NHAI.(2) At what rate compensation will be given for the acquired land by the NHAI?(3) Provide information on what distance should he\n       construct the main building of his House?"The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated\n29.08.2013:"The Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI\n       application are more in the nature of seeking advice and clarification whereas under the\n       provisions of theRTI Act, 2005only information as is held by the Respondent in material\n       form can be provided. The Respondent are not expected to create information or to give\n       advise. The information sought by the Appellant therefore does not qualify as information\n       as defined undersection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005."Page 15 of 256.6.      In       Kothandaraman          Venkataraman         vs.    CPIO,       Bank       of     India\n[CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/166537], the appellant filed RTI application dated 17.07.2017\nseeking the following information:(i)       "Confirmation from telephone service provider for messages delivered from this\n                 ATM-TCE9038/ triggered by this ATM for my attempted withdrawal transaction no.348748 on 8.9.16 and any other sms sent to my phone by your service provider for\n                 this transaction the same day.(ii)      name of telephone service provider for cross verification print out.(iii)     Appellant want the calibrated maximum delivery in Rupees machine-TCE9038 can\n                 deliver per withdrawal transaction, this when was last calibrated before 8.9.16 date\n                 and value. It can be 15000 or 10000 only.(iv)      inspecting this record wherever it is recorded / registered must be in Chennai."The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated\n09.04.2019:"6.      The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing\n          both the parties and perusal of records, feels that there is no danger to life of any\n          individual as claimed by the respondent undersection 8 (1) (g)of RTI Act         in providing\n          information. The information may be supplied within 15 days from the date of issue of this\n          order."6.7.InChayan      Ghosh       Chowdhury     vs.    CPIO,     Punjab         &   Sind    Bank\n[CIC/PASBK/A/2019/123506], the appellant filed RTI application seeking the following\ninformation:        "Kindly provide the following information with respect to administrative control of\n                Zonal Office, Bareilly:(i)          Number of employees, cadre wise& year-wise, who have been placed under\n                Suspension, since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.(ii)         Total remuneration, cadre-wise & year-wise, paid to suspended employees since\n                01.01.2013 to date of providing information.(iii)        Certified copies of the rules relied by the bank for review of suspension between\n                01.01.2013 to date of providing information.Page 16 of 25(iv)      Name & designation of officials who were members of the Review Committee for\n             Suspension during the period 01.01.2013 to date of providing information."\nThe Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide order\ndated 20.09.2021:"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both\n          the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was\n          incomplete and requisite information in response to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI\n          application had not been provided so far. The stipulated time for transferring the RTI\n          application to the concerned Branch having elapsed, it was the responsibility of the\n          respondent to obtain the same and provide it to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent\n          is directed that information in respect to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application be\n          made available to the appellant along with uploading the same undersection 4 (1) (b)of\n          the RTI Act on their web portal within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.\n          With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."6.8.      Definition of Information underRTI Act, 2005"Section 2(f)of the RTI Act defines 'Information' as any material in any form, including\nrecords, documents, memos, email, opinion, contract report logbooks, samples, models\nheld in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be\naccessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force".Further,Section 2 (i)defines the term "record" which includes:a) document, manuscript and fileb) microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a documentc) reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or\n          not); andd) other material produced by a computer or any other deviceRTI Actprovides that only such information is required to be supplied under the Act,\nwhich already exists in material form and is held by the public authority or held under the\ncontrol of the public authority. According to the Act, the public information officer is notPage 17 of 25to generate or interpret information, nor is he or she to solve problems raised by applicants\nor to respond to hypothetical questions.Further, the term "held by or under the control of public authority" insection 2(j)of RTI\nAct has to be reads in a manner that it effectuates and is harmony with the term\n"information" as defined insection 2(f).6.8.1         The definition of "right to information" as given undersection 2(j)in theRTI\nActis reproduced as under:"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--(a)......(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this\n              Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the\n              right to--(i) inspection of work, documents, records;(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;(iii) taking certified samples of material;(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video\n                      cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such\n                      information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"6.8.2         In Institute of chartered accountant ofIndia V. Shahunak H. Satyaand\nors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 of 2011] the Supreme Court laid down the following\nobservations:"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make distinction regarding information\n        intended to bring transparency to improve accountability and to reduce corruption,\n        falling undersection 4(1)(b)and (c) and other information which may not have a\n        bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under theRTI Actwill have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency,\n        the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other\n        public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government,Page 18 of 25preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited\n        fiscal resources."6.8.3          InCentral Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay\n& Ors.[2011 (8) SCALE 645] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:"The RTI Actprovides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear\n        from a combined reading ofsection 3and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to\n        information' under clauses (f) and (j) ofsection 2of the Act. If a public authority has any\n        information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant\n        may access such information, subject to the exemptions insection 8of the Act. But where\n        the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such\n        information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of\n        the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to\n        collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant..."....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require\n        drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to\n        provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any\n        'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the\n        definition of 'information' insection 2(f)of the Act, only refers to such material\n        available in the records of the public authority......."6.8.4 In Khanapuram Gandaiah V Administrative Officer & Ors. [S.L.P. (Civil) 34868\nof 2009], the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 laid down the following\nobservations:"This definition shows that an applicant underSection 6of the RTI Act can get any\n        information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under\n        law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions,\n        advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such\n        opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in mattersPage 19 of 25pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed\n        by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the\n        remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by\n        revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek\n        information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision\n        or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to\n        such a conclusion."6.8.5    In case ofA.K. Vasudev V. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public\nDistribution, New Delhi, it was held that respondent is seeking answers to his questions,\nwhich does not fall within the definition of 'information' as perSection 2(f)of the RTI\nAct. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the\nmatter of Dr. Celsa Pinto V. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007,\ndecision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: "The definition of information\ncannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as\nasking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information\nauthorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was\ndone or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition\nabout information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities\nand cannot properly be classified as information."6.8.6          Right to information only to citizen ofIndia\n\nThe Right to Information Actgives right to information only to citizen of India. It does not\nmake provision for giving information to companies, associations, corporations etc.\nHowever, if an application is made by an employee of any corporation, association,\ncompany, NGO indicating his name and such employee/officer bearer is a citizen of India\nthenin that caseit would presume that a citizen has sought information and the\ninformation may be supplied to him/her.Page 20 of 256.8.7 Information relating to any private body\n\nThe objective is to make public authority liable to make the information under their\ncustody accessible to the citizens and such obligation is not on the private bodies.\nHowever, in case the information which as a mandatory filing or otherwise is available\nwith the public authorities being public record subject to exemptions is accessible under\nRTI. Information relating to any private body although cannot be obtained directly but can\nbe obtained through a public authority if law allows public authority to access it through\nmandatory filing or inspection etc. and thus become custodian.6.8.8        In case ofPoorna Prajna High School V. Central Information Commissionit was held that it is mandatory for public authorities to disseminate information that is\naccessible to them. As a result, information that a public body has access to is deemed\ninformation underSection 2(f)of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Here public authority\nis referred to as the framework or the body under which the institution is governed.6.8.9        In case ofReserve Bank of India V. Jayantilal Mistrythe Court briefly\nanalysedsection 2(f)of the RTI Act, which defines information to include "... information\nrelating to any private body which can accessed by a public authority under any other law\nfor the time being in force." Using this inclusive definition, the Court held that, even if a\nfiduciary relationship existed between the RBI and other banks,section 2(f)would render\nthem accessible to the public."6.8.10       As per the RTI rules 2012, an application under sub-section (1) ofSection 6of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily\nnot contain more than five hundred words, excluding containing address of the\nCentral Public Information Officer and that of the applicant. However, the RTI\napplication filed by the complainant was having around 1800 words.6.8.11       Perusal of the RTI application against which the complainant has filed\ncomplaint reveals that he has sought details of Willful Defaulters, NPA Analytics,\nLoss, doubtful or written off loans, Financial supply chain of banks, CRD/OTS, NPA\nTurnaround, Adhoc limits, FX, Gifts, donations/DEA Fund and Commissions,Page 21 of 25Demo/GST, Limitation and NPA Sales, Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers and EB.\nPerusal further reveals that in most of the cases he has not sought any material or copy\nof the order instead he has sought confirmation, analytics, details of processes etc.\nThus he has not sought records or documents which were in the custody of the public\nauthority.6.9          The position when a complaint is filed by the complainant and the same is\nregistered underSection 18of the RTI Act may be discussed in the first instance.6.9.1        During hearing the complainant raised the issue of converting complaint into\nappeal and prayed for the information in terms of the guidelines available on the CIC\nportal. Succinctly, the facts of the case on the subject are that earlier the field was\noccupied by an order dated 21st September, 2017, the relevant para 1 of the order is re-\nproduced as under:"In a case of complaint(s) where the applicant seeks information and\n             also requests for imposition of penalty on the CPIO, the complaint\n             should be registered as Second Appeal, in case First Appeal was also\n             filed by the applicant, as both reliefs sought by the applicant can be\n             made available underSection 19".6.9.2        Subsequently, the order was amended vide order dated 14th June,2018. The\nrelevant portion of the order under the head Registration of Complaint is re-produced as\nunder:"During scrutiny of Complaint, if it is found that the Complainant has\n             requested for the information along with the imposition of the\n             penalty, the Complaint should be registered as Second Appeal,\n             provided first appeal had been filed by the Complainant. However, if\n             the first appeal has not been filed, the person concerned may be\n             asked to file first appeal before filing second appeal."6.9.3        The matter was discussed during the meeting held on 22nd May,2019\nincluding the order of the CIC dated 14th June,2019. It was unanimously decided that the\nsame would be withdrawn.       The order dated 27th May,2019 withdrawing the order\ndated 14th June,2018 holds the field for the present.Page 22 of 256.9.4         It may be noted that while considering the issue as to whether the relief undersection 19of the Act maybe granted undersection 18of the RTI Act or not, the\nCommission      in   Sanjay   Ramesh    Shirodkar    vs.   Mumbai    International    Airport\nLtd.[CIC/MA/C/2008/000195] passed the following observations vide its order dated\n18.05.2020:"6.   The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case,\n        hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant had\n        not filed second appeal aggrieved by non receipt of information/reply in response to\n        his RTI application and first appeal before approaching this commission by way of\n        complaint. Prima facie, it may not be unreasonable for MIAL to consider itself not\n        covered within the meaning of public authority under theRTI Act. Keeping in view\n        of the above facts, it might not be proper for this Commission, on a complaint,\n        where the relief sought had been punishment for not maintaining a list of CPIOs to\n        punish without holding MIAL a 'public authority' or to treat complaint as second\n        appeal. The ideal situation should have been that the complainant had exhausted\n        available remedies i.e. First Appeal and/or Second Appeal. Having been not\n        declared as 'public authority', MIAL might not be under an obligation to disclose\n        the information requested for by the complainant nor maintain a list of CPIOs as\n        mandated by theRTI Act.6.9.5         The Supreme Court in the case ofChief Information Commissioner and\nAnother Vs State of Manipur and Another[(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1] has held :-"The only order which can be passed by the Information Commissioner underSection 18is an order of penalty provided underSection 20. However, before\n        such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the\n        Information Officer was not bona fide. The Commissioner while entertaining a\n        complaint underSection 18has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for\n        access to the information.Page 23 of 25The appellant after having applied for information underSection 6and then not\n       having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused\n       the information. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the\n       information is provided underSection 19of the Act."6.10         The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the\ncase hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant has\nfiled complaint underSection 18of the RTI Act. He filed the complaint without\nexhausting the remedy of filing second appeal. In view of the factual as well as legal\ndiscussions made above, the Commission does not find any substance in the\ncomplaint. Hence, the complaint is rejected.Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.Sd/-सुरेश चं ा)\n                                                            (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा\n                                                                            सूचना आयु )\n                                                 Information Commissioner (सू\n                                                                  दनांक/Date: 01.11.2021\n\nAuthenticated true copy\n\nR. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )\nDy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)\n011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)\n\n\n\nAddresses of the parties:\n\n\nCPIO : BANK OF BARODA\nBARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,\nC-26, G-BLOCK,\nBANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI - 400 051\n\n\nTHE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,\nBANK OF BARODA,\nBARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,\nC-26, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,\nMUMBAI - 400 051Page 24 of 25SH. SAMIR SARDANAPage 25 of 25