Central Information CommissionMrs Venkatachalam vs State Bank Of Hyderabad on 27 July, 2016Central Information Commission
        Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                                             website-cic.gov.in

     Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000701, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000702, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000703,
        No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000704, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000705, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000741,
        No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000742, No.CIC/MP/A/2016/000743, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000906,
        No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000907, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000908, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000911,
        No.CIC/MP/A/2016/000912, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000913, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000956,
        No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001004, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001005, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001051,
                     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001221, No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001237,

Appellant                       :        Shri S. Venkatachalam, Nizamabad.
Public Authority                :        State Bank of Hyderabad, Nizamabad/Hyderabad

Date of Hearing                  :       27th July, 2016.
Date of Decision                 :       27th July, 2016

Present
Appellant                       :        Not present.
Respondent                      :        Shri B. Devadas, Chief Manager & Shri Vivek
                                         Singh, Dy. Manager at CIC.

                                               ORDERThe appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, as stated by the respondent authority, was an ex-
official of the State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH). While working as branch manager, he was
involved in grave misconduct and defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs. 2.69 crore by
sanctioning agricultural advances on the basis of fake pattadar passbooks against the bank's
guidelines and norms in this respect. In view of serious nature of misconduct committed by
the appellant, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings initiated against
him culminating in his dismissal from service. He has been since then seeking details related
to or incidental to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him.The appellant had conveyed his inability to attend the hearing vide his letter dated
19.07.2016. He has withdrawn four appeals (No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ 000701, 742, 907 and911) out of the 20 appeals which were fixed for hearing today. He had further requested for
being provided with information in rest of the cases.1.    No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000701

RTI application                  :       16.05.2015
CPIO's reply                     :       16.06.2015
First appeal                     :       17.06.2015
FAA's order                      :       07.07.2015
Second appeal                    :       20.02.201611.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, submitted RTI application before the Central
Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad, while
mentioning that he was charge sheeted alleging that he had sanctioned 900 crop loans
amounting to Rs. 313.92 lakh against fake/tempered title deeds to relations, sought
information regarding the correct status of fake/tempered title deeds and the actual amount of
loss that accrued to the bank.1.2     The CPIO responded that the information being sought was of interrogatory nature
and therefore did not fall within the purview ofsection 2(f)of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied the
appellant approached the first appellate authority who directed the CPIO to furnish the crop
loans sanctioned at Reddypet branch against fake/tempered title deeds. Aggrieved with
response, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for
correct number of crop loans sanctioned against fake/tempered title deeds.1.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had
provided him the information endorsing a copy of their letter dated 27.7.2015 sent by the
CPIO concerned to DGM (Compliance) intimating that as per record available, the number
of crop loans sanctioned against fake/tempered title deeds was 885.1.4    From the foregoing it is apparent that the CPIO had not addressed the reply to the
appellant concerned. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the number of
fake/tempered title deeds sought through the RTI application to the appellant, again within
seven days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.2.      No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000702

RTI application               :      14.05.2015
CPIO's reply                  :      16.06.2015
First appeal                  :      16.06.2015
FAA's order                   :      07.07.2015
Second appeal                 :      20.02.2016


2.1   The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the copy of service regulation/system
and procedures regarding restricting the transactions from customers account to his OD
account and vice versa.2.2     The CPIO intimated the appellant that the information sought did not fall within the
purview ofsection 2(f)of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first
appellate authority who directed the CPIO, Regional Office, Armoor, to furnish the copy of
system and procedures, State Bank of Hyderabad regulations/guidelines/circular prohibiting
transactions from staff account to customer's account. Dissatisfied, the appellant came in
appeal before the Commission. He, however, did not mention the specific point on which he
sought information in the second appeal. He sent written submission dated 19.7.2016 again
stating that he had not received the information from the CPIO.22.3     The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had
complied with the FAA's directions on 27.7.2015 itself intimating that the copy of system
and procedures, guidelines prohibiting transactions from staff account to customer's account
and vice versa was not available. They added, however, that they had obtained the relevant
of the Officers Service Regulations, 1979 from the head office and they will provide a copy
to the appellant.2.4     In view of the submissions of the respondents, the Commission directs the CPIO to
provide a copy of the relevant guidelines, as available, to the appellant within seven days of
the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.3.    No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000703

RTI application               :       16.05.2015
CPIO's reply                  :       16.06.2015
First appeal                  :       17.06.2015
FAA's order                   :       07.07.2015
Second appeal                 :       20.02.2016

3.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information on his known sources of
income and the amount of transactions beyond his known source of income while stating that
it had been alleged that many transactions, both cash and transfer had taken place in his
personal OD account which were beyond his known source of income.3.2   The CPIO replied that the information sought was not coveredu/s 2(f)of the RTI
Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who directed the
CPIO and AGM, Region-IV, Amroor to provide the available information on source of his
income other than salary as declared from the assets and liabilities statement submitted to the
bank. Aggrieved with not having received any reply, the appellant came in appeal before
the Commission stating that he had not received any information so far.3.3      The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had
promptly complied with the FAA's order and after a thorough search to trace the assets and
liabilities statement, intimated the appellant that it was not available with the branch.3.4     The Commission holds that the respondents can provide the information that is
available with them and as this record is not available, the Commission cannot cast any
obligation on the CPIO to provide the same. The appeal is disposed of.4.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000704

RTI application               :       14.05.2015
CPIO's reply                  :       18.05.2015
First appeal                  :       05.06.2015
FAA's order                   :       09.07.2015
Second appeal                 :       20.02.201634.1      The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning that out of 18 crop loans
accounts sanctioned on 15.4.2009, for Reddypet branch, only ten accounts were noted by the
Regional Office and the other eight were noted to have been sanctioned by the branch
without the approval of the controlling authority. Therefore, he asked for copy of the
approval note of the controlling authority for the ten crop loan accounts along with copy of
the letter from RO to the branch to send the loan applications to the RO for appraisal.2.      The CPIO intimated that the note copy was not traceable in the bank's record. The
appellant, aggrieved by the CPIO's denial of information approached the first appellate
authority who directed the CPIO and AGM, RO, Amroor to re-examine the availability of
the information sought by the appellant and to provide the relevant information, if available.
No having received any further information the appellant came in appeal before the
Commission seeking the copy of approval note of the controlling authority for ten crop loan
accounts. He reiterated the same through his letter dated 19.7.2016 to the Commission.3.      The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had
complied with the directions of the FAA on 27.7.2015 itself intimating the appellant that this
record was not available. They stated that the old record which was kept in the old building
had got spoilt because of water seepage and was not traceable. Now the branch has been
shifted from the old building to a new building on 10.6.2016. The respondents further added
that the compliance to FAA's order was sent to the appellant through registered post on the
same day.4.4    The Commission finds that the appellant has been intimated of the status obtaining in
the matter regarding the non-availability of record in question. The respondents can only
provide information that is existing and available which is not the position in the present
case. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondent authority. The appeal is
disposed of.5.   No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000705

RTI application               :      04.06.2015
CPIO's reply                  :      08.05.2015
First appeal                  :      20.06.2015
FAA's order                   :      07.07.2015
Second appeal                 :      20.02.2016

5.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought copies of three letters of regional office
pertaining to fraud that occurred in Reddypet due to fake patta books.5.2    The CPIO provided a copy of a letter dated 8.5.2010 and intimated that the letters
dated 17.8.2010 and 14.9.2010 were not traceable in their record. Dissatisfied with the
response, the appellant approached the first appellate authority requesting him to advise the
CPIO to get information from Reddypet branch and provide it to him. The FAA directed the
CPIO to re-examine the availability of information sought while directing the CPIO to
provide it, if available. The appellant had not mentioned anything about the compliance, if4any, made by the CPIO and appealed to the Commission to get the two letters dated
17.8.2010 and 14.9.2010 furnished to him.5.3     The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that, in compliance
to the FAA's order, they had already intimated the appellant about the non-availability of the
two letters in question. They stated that they had made sincere efforts to search for these
letters but these could not be found.5.4    In view of the position of non-availability of the copies of the letters being sought by
the appellant, and the respondents having searched the documents with no fruitful results, the
Commission finds no need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.6.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000743

RTI application               :       12.08.2015
CPIO's reply                  :       11.09.2015
First appeal                  :       06.10.2015
FAA's order                   :       13.10.2015
Second appeal                 :       18.02.2016

6.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information regarding the details of the
training programmes attended by him during the period 1.1.2005 to 6.10.2009 at Staff
Training Centre of SBH.6.2     The CPIO informed the appellant about the non-availability of this information in the
branch. The FAA who had been approached by the appellant directed the CPIO to provide
the information if it was available with the Regional Office. The appellant, thereafter, made
an appeal to the Commission requesting the Commission to direct the CPIO and FAA to
provide him the information sought.6.3     The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated the position
that the record regarding the deputation of a particular officer for training was not maintained
by the branch or the Regional Office. Therefore, they had shown their inability to provide
the same. They had, however, complied with the FAA's directions and intimated the
position to the appellant through their letter dated 21.10.2015.6.4     On the Commission questioning the respondents that the Staff Training Centres
concerned should be having the details of trainees who attended the various training
programmes, they replied in affirmative. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to
obtain the information from the two training centres at Aurangabad and Secunderabad and
intimate the training courses attended by the appellant from 2005 to 2009, if any, to the
appellant within thirty days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is
disposed of.57.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000906

RTI application               :      01.12.2015
CPIO's reply                  :      01.01.2016
First appeal                  :      21.01.2016
FAA's order                   :      27.01.2016
Second appeal                 :      26.03.2016


7.1    The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought copies of four letters dated 16.10.2009,
16.6.2010, 7.3.2011 and 12.9.2012 along with the second stage advice of the CVO.7.2    The CPIO rejected the request quoting the CIC judgment dated 9.7.2014 according to
which "Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private
purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest would cause
substantial harm to the legitimate aim of theRTI Act.""The Commission infers from the above that thoughRTI Act, did not specifically
provide as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the objective and
various provisions of theRTI Act, that right of citizen to information is limited to one time
and does not extend to repetition of request for that directly or indirectly."7.3     Aggrieved with the denial of information by the CPIO, the appellant approached the
first appellate authority who transferred it to the GM, Warangal Network, as the RTI
structure in the bank had undergone a change and GM, Warangal Network had become the
appellate authority. The appellant had not enclosed the order of the FAA with his second
appeal. He came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for information.7.4     The matter was heard by the Commission. Vide his submissions dated 19.7.2016, the
appellant stated that his application had been rejected mentioning that he was making
repetitive applications to promote private interest. He was, however, dismissed from service
in the matter of fake title deeds involving borrowers, revenue officials and others and he
reiterated his request for the information sought. The respondents stated that the FAA had
duly adjudicated on the first appeal by upholding the CPIO's decision. The respondents
added that the appellant had made more than 200 applications and had been seeking
information in piece meal which had been telling on the respondent authority's lean human
resources. They also stated that the CIC in its judgment dated 9.7.2014 has held that "when
an applicant uses an opportunity on a particular subject as per the law, he is expected
to seek all the related information in that first ever opportunity itself, he cannot file
another application for a bit or piece which he forgot ....."7.5      The Commission observes that there is no doubt that the appellant has been making
repetitive applications asking for information on one or two points in each application which
would certainly result in avoidable diversion of manpower deployed in responding to his
innumerable RTI applications, but in this case, the appellant has sought copies of certain
letters including the second stage advice of the CVO. The CVO's advice, in any case, is to6be provided to the charged officer as per CVC's letter No. 99/VGL/66 dated 28.9.2000. The
Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide copy of the second stage advice of the
CVO to the appellant. As regards the other letters, the Commission directs the CPIO to
revisit the matter afresh and provide the copies of the four letters, if available and
disclosable, keeping the provisions of theRTI Actin view within fifteen days of the receipt
of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.8.    No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000908

RTI application               :      06.01.2016
CPIO's reply                  :      06.02.2016
First appeal                  :      20.02.2016
FAA's order                   :          --Second appeal                 :      26.03.2016

8.1    The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the extracts of the inward register atReginoal office, Nizamabad from April 11, 2009 to May 10, 2009 showing the
correspondence from Reddypet branch.8.2     The CPIO denied information in view of the repetitive request for information for
private purpose. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who does
not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. The appellant therefore came in appeal before
the Commission seeking the same information vide his letter dated 27.7.2016, he has
requested the Commission not to treat the application as one for promoting private interest.8.3    The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the FAA had
adjudicated in the matter vide his letter dated 24.3.2016 addressed to the appellant and had
upheld the CPIO's decision.8.4    The Commission, on perusing the record and hearing the respondents, finds that the
CPIO has not gone into the merits of the case, therefore, directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI
application and provide the copy of the inward register pertaining to the appellant's case
while keeping the provisions of theRTI Actin view. The appeal is disposed of.9.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000912

RTI application               :      19.11.2015
CPIO's reply                  :      13.01.2016
First appeal                  :      21.01.2016
FAA's order                   :      06.02.2016
Second appeal                 :      30.03.2016

9.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the copies of assets and liabilities
statement from March 2004 to March 2012 that was submitted to the regional office,
Nizamabad, confidential reports from the year 2009, income tax form 16A for the year 2012-
13 along with the newspaper bill, cleansing material allowance and casual labour charges7paid to him during the suspension period from 7.10.2009 to 22.5.2013 from Kamareddy
branch.9.2    The CPIO denied the information in view of repetitive applications. Dissatisfied, the
appellant approached the first appellate authority who also upheld the CPIO's decision as the
appellant had made more than 200 RTI applications. Aggrieved with the response, the
appellant came in appeal before the Commission.9.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they will make
one more attempt to trace the statement of his assets and liabilities and confidential reports
from 2004 to 2012 and provide, if available. As regards form 16A and newspaper bills,
cleansing material and causal labour charges, they shall be providing the same as it is
available in the system.9.4     In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide information
point 3 and 4 of the RTI application within ten days of the receipt of the order of the
Commission. As regards the assets and liabilities and the ACRs of the official, the
Commission directs the CPIO to make one more attempt to trace the documents sought and
provide the copies/outcome, as the case may be, to the appellant within one month of the
receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.10.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000913

RTI application               :       18.08.2015
CPIO's reply                  :       18.06.2015
First appeal                  :       20.06.2015
FAA's order                   :       24.07.2015
Second appeal                 :       30.03.2016

10.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the list of borrowers with account
numbers to whose near relatives he had sanctioned loans without tenancy certificates.10.2 The CPIO denied the information as it came within the purview of the personal
information disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and
would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the individual. The appellant thereafter
approached the first appellate authority who held that the appellant had gone to the court and
the matter was sub judice. The correctness or otherwise of the proceedings would be decided
by the High Court and also that no public interest was involved in the matter. Dissatisfied,
the appeal came in appeal before the Commission reiterating his request for information.10.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated that the
appellant was seeking personal information of third parties and they hold the account
information, etc. relating to their customers in confidence. Besides, this was also third party
information. No larger public interest was involved in the matter. Therefore, they had
denied the information about the account numbers of the third parties.810.4 The Commission tends to agree with the respondents that the bank has to maintain
the secrecy of its customers' personal information. Moreover, the appellant has not
established any larger public interest in the matter. The Commission, therefore, upholds the
CPIO/FAA's decision. The appeal is disposed of.11.     No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000956

RTI application              :       18.11.2015
CPIO's reply                 :       17.12.2015
First appeal                 :       22.12.2015
FAA's order                  :       30.01.2016
Second appeal                :       19.03.2016

11.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while stating that he was dismissed from
service on 22.5.2013, sought a copy of the orders of the reviewing authority, the Chairman &
Managing Director of the State Bank of Hyderabad.11.2 The CPIO informed the appellant that it was not CPIO's duty to get the information
from other offices to provide it to him. The FAA, who had been approached, held that the
information sought by the appellant was vague as he had not mentioned the date or request
numbers of the orders passed by the reviewing authority. The appellant, thereafter, came in
appeal before the Commission.11.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant vide his letter dated
19.7.2016 stated that he was dismissed by the bank and as per the disciplinary proceedings in
the bank; the reviewing authority passes the order finally and requested the Commission to
direct the CPIO to provide him the information. On the Commission questioning the
respondents, whether the ex-official's appeal relating to dismissal had been decided, the
respondents stated that the same had been rejected. The respondents added that there was no
record with respect to any review by the Chairman & Managing Director available in their
branch.11.4 In view of the foregoing, the Commission does not find any reason to intervene in the
matter. The appeal is disposed of.12.   No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001004

RTI application              :       08.01.2016
CPIO's reply                 :       08.02.2016
First appeal                 :       12.02.2016
FAA's order                  :           --Second appeal                :       26.03.2016

12.1    The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning certain account numbers,sought the name/designation of the authority who identified irregularities in the 47 accounts9mentioned in his RTI application, nature of irregularities and the documentary evidence
establishing the irregularities in the accounts in question.12.2 The CPIO denied information on the ground of repetitive RTI applications.
Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority. Having received no
information the appellant approached the Commission.12.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the FAA had
duly adjudicated upon the RTI application vide his order 24.3.2016 and upheld the order of
the CPIO. They added that the documentary evidence of the charges and the nature of
irregularities against the appellant had been already provided to him during disciplinary
proceedings. They stated that a special audit was conducted and the information relating to
the official conducting the audit was personal information which could not be provided.12.4      The Commission observes that the CPIO can provide the designation only of the
official who conducted the audit and directs him to furnish to the appellant within one week
of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.13.   No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001005

RTI application              :      31.12.2015
CPIO's reply                 :          --First appeal                 :      17.02.2016
FAA's order                  :          --
Second appeal                :      26.03.201613.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought information on the action taken by the
Zonal Office, Nizamabad and the regional office, Nizamabad from 2009 to 2011 and
thereafter mentioning that he had submitted the copies of form 6A, 6C that were obtained
after the special audit of Reddypet branch for the accounts listed in the fraud monitoring
report and in the charge sheet served to him.13.2 Not having received the reply from the CPIO and the FAA, the appellant came in
appeal before the Commission with a request to direct the CPIO to furnish the information to
him

13.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had
already provided the response to the appeal vide CPIO's letter dated 18.2.2016 as the
appellant had sent the RTI application to the Zonal Office instead of the CPIO.13.4   The Commission finds that the first appeal made to the FAA remains unadjudicated.
The Commission therefore remands the matter to the FAA to provide a reasoned and
speaking order on the first appeal within one month of the receipt of the order of the
Commission. The appeal is disposed of.1014.   No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001051

RTI application              :       02.12.2015
CPIO's reply                 :       13.01.2016
First appeal                 :       21.01.2016
FAA's order                  :       06.02.2016
Second appeal                :       02.05.2016

14.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while expressing his grievance regarding the
statement given by him during the inquiry proceeding having been disregarded by the
inquiring authority, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while giving
reports/orders/ recommendations, sought "the significance, importance of deposition by the
charge sheeted officer during inquiry proceedings" and the related papers from the manual
on disciplinary and vigilance proceeding in the bank.14.2 The CPIO denied information in view of the repetitive applications and also as no
public interest was involved. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate
authority who upheld the CPIO's decision. The appellant came in appeal before the
Commission thereafter reiterating his demand for information.14.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant
was not seeking any information. Therefore, their denial to provide any information.14.4 On hearing the respondents and perusing the documents, the Commission finds that
the appellant is seeking the opinion of the CPIO and the FAA which does not qualify to be
information undersection 2(f)of the RTI Act and the respondents can only provide the
information that is existing and available. They submitted that they had already provided the
service regulations. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal
is disposed of.15.    No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001221

RTI application              :       09.02.2016
CPIO's reply                 :           --First appeal                 :       28.03.2016
FAA's order                  :           --
Second appeal                :       07.05.201615.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, sought the date of the receipt of RDO inquiry
report dated 31.12.2009 at regional office, Nizamabad.15.2 The appellant had not received any response from the CPIO/FAA. Therefore, he
came in appeal before the Commission.1115.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had
already responded to the RTI application on 18.2.2016 mentioning that the appellant had
been making repetitive applications and no public interest was involved in the matter. the
FAA also upheld the CPIO's decision vide his order dated 15.5.2016.15.4 The Commission finds that neither the CPIO nor the FAA had provided the
information sought to the appellant. On hearing the respondents and perusing the available
record, therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the date of receipt of the
inquiry report in regional office, Nizamabad along with supporting documents, as available,
within three weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.16.   No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001237

RTI application              :       27.01.2016
CPIO's reply                 :       07.04.2016
First appeal                 :       03.05.2016
FAA's order                  :       18.05.2016
Second appeal                :       25.05.2016

16.1 The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, while mentioning page 4/9 of the special audit
report dated 29.7.2009, sought to know the names of the so called middlemen, name of the
borrower, account number alleged to have been written by the so called middlemen and the
documentary evidence establishing the allegation that the documents were written by the so
called middlemen in view of the auditors' report that a few documents were allowed to be
written by the middlemen.16.2 The CPIO denied information on the first two points regarding the names of the so
called middlemen, the name of the borrower, account number, etc. as the audit report
involved commercial confidence and the disclosure was exemptu/s 8(1)(d)and on the rest of
the points, the CPIO held that the information sought to be hypothetical and, therefore, not
within the purview of information as definedu/s 2(f)of the RTI Act. The FAA upheld the
decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved with the response, the appellant came in appeal before the
Commission reiterating his demand for information and stating that the denial of information
was incorrect.16.3 The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated they had provided
information/replies to a number of RTI applications and in this case the information being
sought was held by them under 8(1)(d) involving commercial confidence. It was also the
personal information of the account holders/borrowers, therefore, they could not provide
such information to the appellant. They also stated that as regards the evidence available,
such matters had been dealt in detail during disciplinary proceedings where the appellant was
provided access to the relevant information.16.4 In view of the above, the Commission does not find any need to intervene in the
matter. The appeal is disposed of.1216.5 The respondents stated that ever since the appellant's dismissal from service, he had
made over 200 RTI applications. While it had been their sincere desire and attempt to try to
provide him the information sought, the appellant's barrage of RTI application remained
unabated. They added that they had, in response to numerous RTI application, provided
information on a host of subjects/issues and that the appellant was already in possession of a
number of documents as he quoted the dates, paras, reference nos. of these while seeking
information/copies of such letters. Moreover, the appellant had, vide his letter dated
26.5.2015, thanked the AGM/CPIO and staff of Regional Office for furnishing him the
requested information during the last one year and assured that there will not be any further
RTI applications from him in near future but from the very next day onwards he had made
eight (8) more RTI applications since then. They further stated that the Commission in the
case of Manjeet Singh Bal vs Sub Divisional Magistrate (Saket), New Delhi dated 9.7.2014,
has held that "The universal principles of civil justice also recognized 'constructive res
judicata', which in the RTI context means when an applicant uses an opportunity of
obtaining information on a particular subject as per law, he is expected to seek all the
related information in that first ever opportunity itself. He cannot file another application
for a bit or piece which he forgot to ask, or not advised by his lawyer, or for any other
reason. He should ask all possible aspects of information about that subject matter, in the
first ever available opportunity. Even if he does not, it is presumed by law that he asked for
that and was refused after due trial. This is incorporated in principles of civil procedural
justice and practiced universally. It is in the public interest and also to further the objectives
ofRight to Information Act, that such repeated or unending stream of questions being sought
from same or different public authorities to be stopped."16.6 Further, the Commission in decision dated 17.1.2012 observed that "The
Commission recognizes the fact that valuable time of the complainant, respondent, public
authority as well as the Commission is being spent merely going through the motions
prescribed under theRTI Actagain and again to obtain similar information ......... At this
juncture, the Commission would like to mention that though the right to information is a
fundamental right of the citizens, it cannot be used indiscriminately to fulfill the demands of
one individual."16.7 In the present case, the appellant has made over 200 RTI applications which have
been responded to by the respondent authority spending their valuable resources and time
meant to serve the public to satisfy the ever increasing desire of the appellant for seeking
various information/documents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofCBSE vs Aditya
Bandopadhyayhas observed as follows:-"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to
       information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens
       to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions
       ofRTI Actshould be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light
       the necessary information under clause (b) ofsection 4(1)of the Act which relates to
       securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in
       discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information
       other than those enumerated insection 4(1)(b)and (c) of the Act), equal importance
       and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive13information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments,
       etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions underRTI Actfor
       disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
       accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption)
       would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the
       administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-
       productive work of collecting and furnishing information.The Actshould not be
       allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national
       development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony
       among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or
       intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a
       scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in
       collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their
       regular duties. The threat of penalties under theRTI Actand the pressure of the
       authorities under theRTI Actshould not lead to employees of a public authorities
       prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."16.8 In view of the foregoing, the Commission advises the appellant not to indulge in
making repetitive and frivolous RTI applications and also learn to honour his own
commitment in this regard.(Manjula Prasher)
                                                                Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:(T.K. Mohapatra)
Dy Secy & Dy Registrar
Tele No. 011-26105027



Address of the parties:Shri S. Venkatachalam,
H. No. 3-1-138, Ayyappanagar,
Post: Kamareddy-503111.
Dist. Nizamabad (Telengana)14The Central Public Information Officer,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Zonal Office Nizamabad,
3rd Floor, Rukimini Chambers,
Vinayak Nagar,
Nizamabad-503003.The First Appellate Authority
General Manager (Treasury)
State Bank of Hyderabad,
1st Floor, Prabhat Towers,
Head Office, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.15