The “logical conclusion” of the charge sheet served to a person was sought - Respondents: reasoning for ‘logical conclusion’ cannot be interpreted - CIC: sought information is not ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f), appeal dismissed
19 Jun, 2015ORDER
1. The complainant, Shri Saileswar Chakrabarti submitted RTI application dated 14.05.2014 before the Asstt. Central Public Information Officer (ACPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata seeking information on
(a) “the logical conclusion” of the charge sheet of Shri Bhupendra Kumar, CBI DSP in the Mumbai Special Court on Special Case No. 4 of 1995-RC.II(S)/92-SCB/CBI/BOM on the basis of inputs reported and all correspondence exchanged with CBI and Ministry of Finance;
(b) “logical conclusion” of the MIC’s Petition dated 7.9.1998 to the CBI with a copy of the same to the Officer on Special Duty with reference to the order of the said Court on the role of the SCB Senior Management;
(c) “the logical conclusion” of (i) MIC’s inspection report carried out in the first half of 1992 in the SCB Kolkata Merchant Banking Division and (ii) his inspection report dated 4.9.1991 and (iii) MIC’s report dated 30.7.1992 to SCB Group Managing Director in London, following alleged “Larger Conspiracies and custodial, physical and mental tortures inflicted on him” on 27th and 28th July 1992; (d) “logical conclusion” of MIC’s report to RBI and CBI copies of which have been provided by the CBI, vide CBI receipt Memo dated 25.09.1998;
(e) the copy of the CBI letter dated 28.09.1998 to RBI authorities for furnishing copies of the MIC’s correspondence along with the enquiry and action taken reports submitted by the RBI and copies of the same;
(f) The RBI’s purported action response letter dated 09.10.1998 with all enclosures on the MIC’s complaint dated 25.10.1998 to the CBI which RBI reportedly received from the Ministry of Finance; (g) copy of the letter dated 28.7.1994 of Shri B.S.M. Acharya, the then Joint Chief Officer, RBI addressed to MOF relating to (f) confirming veracity, integrity and legality of the contents of the same; (h) the extent and end result of the actual variation of figures in the Balance Sheet and those in Form-X, reported in the Internal Control report dated 4.9.1991 and those reported in the Statesman dated 4.8.1992 in the background of RBI admission that “the Calcutta Office of RBI had carried details of these discrepancies and that the Calcutta Office of RBI had carried out a scrutiny of the books of account of the bank and that the allegations as appeared in the Press were found to be by and large correct…” as per a CBI report made available to the MIC;
(i) The status and day to day progress reports of his letters RBI/SC/65, 67 and 68 dated 5.4.2010, 23.11.2010 and 7.12.2010 respectively among many others, following series of orders of the learned Chief CIC, New Delhi;
(j) copy of the Memo/Note dated 3.10.2001 of the then DBS General Manager, Shri K. Prasad, after his transfer to Rural Credit Planning Department to the then Calcutta Regional Director, and day to day action and progress report on the same till date; (k) Names of all concerned SCB and RBI officials responsible for alleged willful inaction and deliberately hatching larger conspiracies and tailoring letters with baseless contents, contrary to facts and laws, and putting the same on the mount of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, as illustratively evident in RBI letter DBS(CAL) No. 2771/07.01.16/95 dated 22.2.1995 affecting and obstructing administration of justice; (l) duly certified copies of all documents, supplied by RBI DBS on 29.10.2010 and 1.11.2010 to the MIC simply putting a round RBI stamp only without any initials or full signatures, confirming veracity, integrity and legality of the contents of the same and clearly mentioning the names and designation of the concerned officers and those whose names and designations are missing or illegible; through twelve points.
2. The CPIO, RBI, Mumbai vide letter dated 17.06.2014 informed the complainant that the information sought at point (a), (b), (c), (d) did not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act; in response to points (e) to (k) the respondents informed that the required information was not available; and in response to point (l) the CPIO replied that all the documents supplied to him pursuant to his request had been certified by the bank in the manner that is usually done by it while supplying documents in response to applications received.
3. The complainant has approached the Commission in complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act without availing the first appellate channel under Section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act, 2005.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he had submitted his written submissions vide e.-mail dated 6.4.2015 in which he quoted various authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts and various decisions of the Commission in support of his contention; the same had been perused by the Commission. He further added that he had filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and did not prefer first appeal before the FAA as the CPIO had, not provided the required information. He requested the Commission to impose penalty u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act upon the CPIO for not providing requested information. The respondents stated that the appellant had made about twenty appeals in the past, in which the Commission remanded the matter to the FAA for passing a speaking order. The complainant was earlier given an opportunity for inspection of relevant records and he had inspected the records and thereafter photocopies of 40 documents were provided to the complainant. If the complainant mentioned some specific documents, that could be provided to him if available. The respondents reiterated that reasoning for ‘logical conclusion’ cannot be interpreted, the information as it is held and under the control of the public authority in material form can only be provided to the complainant. The information on points (e) to (k) was handled by the RBI, Kolkata and no information is available with them. In response to point (k) the respondents stated that all the documents supplied to the complainant had been certified by the bank in the manner that is usually done by it while supplying documents in response to applications received.
5. In the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs. State of Manipur and Another (Civil appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 arising out of S.L.P(C) No. 32768- 32769/2010) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under vide Judgment dated 12.12.2011:
“44-Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 18 and Section 19 of the said Act is substantially different. The nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act.”
6. The present complaint has been filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 and is being dealt with accordingly. The Commission observes that the complaint on point (a) to (d) had started from the words “The logical conclusion”. The CPIO is not supposed to interpret the ‘logical conclusion’, and it clearly did not fall within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. The reply of the CPIO on point (a) to (d) is upheld. In case the information on point (e) to (k) was related to the RBI, Kolkata, the CPIO instead of informing the complainant that the information was not available with them, should have transferred these points u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the CPIO, RBI, Kolkata. Since no malafide on the part of the CPIO is established against the CPIO, the question of starting penalty proceedings u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act does not arise. However, the Commission, warns the CPIO to be careful in future while providing response to the RTI applicants. However, in case, the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the CPIO, the complainant shall be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Saileswar Chakrabarti v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000239