- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hansi Rawat & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. S
Factual and Procedural Background
This intra-court appeal challenges the order dated 15.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P(C) No. 6556/2012 filed by the appellants. The writ petition itself challenged the order dated 30.08.2012 of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which dismissed the appellants' Second Appeal against the order dated 21.05.2011 of the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the information dated 18.03.2011 provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent Bank in response to the appellants’ RTI application dated 19.02.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appellants contended that the information provided was misleading and incorrect. The CIC noted that appellant No. 2 had been removed from the respondent Bank’s service and observed that the appellants had filed numerous RTI applications—between 50 to 60—on the same subject through various persons, suggesting misuse of the RTI Act. The CIC found no reason to interfere with the decisions of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge upheld the CIC’s decision, finding that the Bank had fulfilled its obligation under the RTI Act by providing the available information.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the information provided by the respondent Bank in response to the RTI application was complete and accurate.
- Whether the appellants were misusing the RTI Act by filing multiple applications on the same subject.
- Whether the proceedings under the RTI Act could be converted into adjudication on the correctness or validity of the information furnished.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The information provided by the respondent Bank was incorrect and misleading.
- Specific reference was made to information sought at serial Nos. 11 to 14 and 26 of the RTI application, which they contended was either not provided or incorrect.
Respondent's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the matter by reviewing the RTI application and the responses provided by the respondent Bank. It noted that the Bank had already furnished the information available in its possession, fulfilling its statutory obligation under the RTI Act, which is limited to providing existing information and not opinions or adjudications.
The court emphasized that the RTI Act is not a forum for adjudicating disputes regarding the correctness of the information supplied. It acknowledged the pending dispute related to the dismissal of appellant No. 2 from the Bank’s service, which is to be addressed before appropriate fora.
Further, the court relied on the CIC’s categorical finding that the appellants had misused the RTI Act by filing numerous repetitive applications on the same subject, a factual finding left undisturbed by the Single Judge. On this basis, the court declined to interfere with the impugned order.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed.
The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the CIC’s order and the First Appellate Authority’s decision, thereby affirming that the respondent Bank fulfilled its obligations under the RTI Act. No costs were awarded. The opinion does not set any new precedent or elaborate on broader legal implications beyond the case’s facts.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 15.10.2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P(C) No. 6556/2012 preferred by the appellants. The said writ petition was preferred challenging the order dated 30.08.2012 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated 21.05.2011 of the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants against the information dated 18.03.2011 provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the respondent Bank in response to the application dated 19.02.2011 of the appellants under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.
2. The First Appellate Authority in its order dated 21.05.2011 held that though information sought by the appellants had been provided to the appellants, the grievance of the appellants was that the information supplied was misleading and wrong. The First Appellate Authority held that information in possession of the respondent Bank had already been provided and no opinion as sought in the application could be provided. The First Appellate Authority also did not find any discrepancy in the information provided.
3. The CIC in its order noted, that the appellant No. 2 had been removed from service of the respondent Bank; that the appellants had sought information on 39 points; that the grievance of the appellants was that misleading and vague information had been provided on the points raised in the RTI application; that the appellants had filed 50 to 60 RTI applications in their names, separately, together as well as in the names of their friends and also through some advocates, on the same subject and on the same questions; that the appellants are misusing the RTI Act needlessly. The CIC further, on examination of the record did not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank.
4. Before the learned Single Judge also, the contention of the appellants was that the information given is not correct. The learned Single Judge went through the RTI application of the appellants and the response thereto and found that the information sought had already been furnished. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the only obligation of the respondent Bank, from which information had been sought, under the RTI Act, was to give information available and no further and the said obligation had been fulfilled.
5. The counsel for the appellants does not controvert the factum of a number of RTI applications having been filed by the appellants themselves or through other persons to the PIO of the respondent Bank. He has however drawn attention to the information sought at serial Nos. 11 to 14 and 26 of the RTI application and the response thereto and on the basis thereof has contended that information has not been provided and/or the information provided is incorrect.
6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No. 2 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. Moreover, there is a categorical finding of the CIC, of the appellants misusing the RTI Act, as is also evident from the plethora of RTI applications filed by the appellants. In view of the said factual findings of the CIC and which is not interfered by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. We do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Alert