Central Information CommissionMohammad Naseem vs State Bank Of India on 26 April, 2022Author:Neeraj Kumar GuptaBench:Neeraj Kumar Guptaके   ी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\nि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2020/121497\n\nMr. Mohammad Naseem                                       ... अपीलकता /Appellant\n                                    VERSUS\n                                     बनाम\nCPIO                                                       ...!ितवादी/Respondent\nState Bank of India\nIndustrial Relations Department\nCorporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan\nMC Road, Mumbai - 400021\n\nRelevant dates emerging from the appeal:-\n\nRTI : 27-02-2020            FA     : 22-03-2020          SA       : 31-07-2020\n\nCPIO : 12-03-2020           FAO : Not on Record          Hearing : 19-04-2022\n\n                                  ORDER1.    The appellant filed an application under theRight to Information Act,\n2005(RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State\nBank of India, MC Road, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information as\nunder:-2.     The CPIO vide letter dated 12-03-2020 had denied the information as\nsought by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file\nfirst appeal dated 22-03-2020 and requested that the information should be\nprovided to him. No order of FAO is placed on record. He has filed a second\nappeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not\nbeen provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete\nand correct information.Page 1 of 5Hearing:3.    The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The\nrespondent, Shri Sanjay Prakash, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through\nvideo-conferencing.4.    The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.5.    The appellant submitted that till date no information has been provided to\nhim by the respondent on his RTI application dated 27.02.2020.6.    The respondent submitted that they have categorically informed the\nappellant that his query is not clear and they have requested the appellant to\nprovide specific query to enable them to provide the information.Decision:7.     The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and\nafter perusal of records, observes that query of the appellant is in the nature of\nseeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO and he has expected that the\nCPIO firstly should analyze the documents and then provide information to the\nappellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret\ninformation; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of theRTI Act. As perSection 2(f)of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can\nonly be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public\nauthority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the\nappellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the\nrecords held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to\ndeduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.8.     In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information\nu/sSection 2(f)of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:"information" means any material in any form, including records,\n       documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,\n       orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material\n       held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body\n       which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the\n       time being in force."In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in\n2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors),\nwherein it was held as under:35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information\n       which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is\n       also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, norPage 2 of 5required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information'\n      insection 2(f)of the Act, only refers to such material available in the\n      records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public\n      relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens.\n      But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any\n      obligation under theRTI Act."Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah\nVs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868\nOF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:6. "....Under the RTI Act"information" is defined underSection 2(f)which provides:"information" means any material in any form, including records,\n      documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars,\n      orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data\n      material held in any electronic form and information relating to any\n      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\n      get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the\n      public authority under law. Of course, under theRTI Actan applicant is\n      entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he\n      cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices,\n      circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material\n      which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under\n      law. UnderSection 6of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only\n      such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under\n      any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the\n      petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority\n      nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4\n      was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a\n      decision in the matter which was before him."Similarly, the High Court of Bombay inDr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint\nSecretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commissionon 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:"Section 2(f)-Information means any material in any form, including\n      records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases,\n      circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models,Page 3 of 5data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any\n      private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other\n      law for the time being in force; The definition cannot include within its\n      fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as\n      asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public\n      Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the\n      reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a\n      justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.\n      Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities\n      and cannot properly be classified as information."The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why\n      which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for\n      a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to\n      communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or\n      not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a\n      requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain\n      of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as\n      information."9.    The appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress\nhis grievance. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the\nmatter.10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.नीरज कु मार गु ा)\n                                      Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज           ा\n                                                              सूचना आयु )\n                                    Information Commissioner (सू\n\n                                                       दनांक / Date : 19-04-2022\nAuthenticated true copy\n(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)\n\n\nS. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),\nDy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),\n(011-26105682)Page 4 of 5Addresses of the parties:\n1.   CPIO\n     State Bank of India\n     Industrial Relations Department\n     Corporate Centre, State Bank Bhawan\n     MC Road, Mumbai - 400021\n\n2.   Mr. Mohammad NaseemPage 5 of 5