Appellant requested to define and elaborate the two words ‘advise’ & ‘instructions’ used in the charge sheet with documentary evidence establishing the same - Respondent: Clarifications and interpretations cannot be provided - CIC upheld the denial order

Date of Hearing : 27th April, 2016.

Date of Decision : 29th April, 2016

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri S. Venkatachalam, submitted RTI application dated 03.11.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad stating that in the charge sheet No. F/20(N)/Gr. X/DP/2010-11 dated 12.03.2011 while framing the charge and imputation X, the words ‘advise’ and ‘instructions’ were used. As per bank’s Book of Instructions /circular /guidelines /general principles in banking terminology, requested to define and elaborate the two words with documentary evidence establishing the same.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.12.2015 denied the information by invoking the provisions of Section 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; “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. Dissatisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant approached the first appellate authority (FAA) on 08.12.2015. The FAA vide order dated 01.01.2016 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.

3. Thereafter, the appellant submitted his appeal to the Commission on 11.01.2016 stating that the information was denied by the respondents by invoking the provisions of Section 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; “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.

4. The instant appeal was one of the 55 appeals heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the respondents did not provide him the requested information by invoking the provisions of Section 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; “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 respondents stated that the appellant was seeking clarifications and interpretations which cannot be provided to him as they do not have anything in the matter in material form.

5. The Commission holds the respondent authority is supposed to provide information as per Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the 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 cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; of the RTI Act, 2005 which is held by or under the control of the public authority as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Aditya Bandopadhyaya vs. CIC & Ors. The respondents during the hearing confirmed that the information sought was not held by them in material form. The Commission finds no reason to interfere in the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri S. Venkatachalam v. State Bank of Hyderabad in Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000204