Action taken in a complaint for allegedly making the applicant an accused in a cyber-crime - CIC: Respondent has given vague and misleading reply which is not as per the RTI Act; Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and give revised reply

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.10.2021 seeking the following information:

Information about action taken in a complaint filed for allegedly making the applicant an accused in a cyber-crime was sought. (Loosely translated)

The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.11.2021 stating as under:

Bank has not made any complaint against you. On the complaint by Shri Ramyag, the police conducted proper enquiry based on evidence and took action. (Loosely translated)

Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.12.2021. FAA’s order, dated 17.01.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Mathur, representative of the Appellant present through AudioConference.

Respondent: Alok Yadav, Regional Manager present through Video-Conference.

The representative of the Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of the RTI application and instant appeal of the Appellant and submitted that the Appellant had sought specific information but no information was provided to the Appellant.

The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 23.11.2021, they have informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant. The Respondent stated that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Appellant stated in his second appeal that he had specifically sought for action taken on his letter, etc. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the factual position in the matter was informed to the Appellant.

The Commission observes that the Respondent has given vague and misleading reply to the Appellant on his RTI application which is also not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The reply given by the CPIO is not at all related with the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application.

In light of the above observations, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application dated 10.10.2021 of the Appellant and give revised point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ashwani Kumar Rawat v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2022/113528; Date of Decision: 02/08/2023