Numerous complaints against CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Bank

The PIO denied information sought by the appellant claiming that it relates to internal communication of the Bank and is confidential in nature. Further, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Before the CIC, it was submitted that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and First Appeals and the same have been disposed of within stipulated time frame. It was informed that RTI applications of the appellant are an offshoot of a family dispute between him and his relative (being one of their staff) and the respondent authority is being dragged to such a personal dispute, which is a clear abuse of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent claimed that in addition to filing numerous RTI applications and complaints, the appellant had also been harassing the officials of our Zone by repeated calls and personal visits to the Branch/Zone. The Appellant has filed numerous complaints against the CPIO, First Appellate Authority of Ujjain Zone and even against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Head Office for exercising their functions under the RTI Act. The officials including the CPIOs are under threat of constant attack from the RTI Applicant for no fault of theirs. Malicious attacks are made on CPIOs through lengthy RTI Applications and Appeals. It was also submitted that the appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 20.09.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/128876 and order dated 28.11.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/141282. The CIC noted that the reply given by the PIO is evasive and misleading. The CPIO, without applying his mind, has simply denied the information as it pertains to their internal communication and most importantly, the CPIO has not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the above-mentioned points and furnish a revised reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses. Regarding the submission of the respondents of multiple RTI applications being filed by the appellant, the CIC observed that the said concern can be taken up in an appropriate matter in the future for want of any similar pattern of cases as well as in the absence of any specific reference of the number of RTI applications filed with the respondent.

Comments

A PIO must know the clauses of the RTI Act thoroughly and the denial of information should be only as per section 8 or section 9.

Citation: Premchand Bangaria v. Bank of India, Mumbai, CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/116770; Date of Decision: 05.03.2025

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com