Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00525-SM dated Nil. Right to Information Act2005 Under Section (19) Dated 01.01.2009 ppellant : Shri V. Vasudevan Respondent : State Bank of Hyderabad The Appellant is absent in spite of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:- (1) Shri D. Virinchi, Asstt. GM (2) Shri A. Krishnamurthy, Chief Manager The Brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant approached the CPIO in the State Bank of Hyderabad in a letter dated 3.10.2007 seeking replies in terms of Yes or No or True or False in respect of 23 queries. The CPIO replied on 8th November, 2007 providing some information or response in respect of query No. 11, 12, 13, 26 and 28 and further informed that the answers for the remaining queries would be provided within 15 days. He followed it up with a reply on 19.11.2007 and furnished some more information in respect of the remaining queries. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Chief General Manager and the Appellate Authority in the Bank on 26.11.2007. The Appellate Authority decided this Appeal in his order dated 26.12.2007. He held that there was no delay in providing the reply as the original application for information had been received in the Bank on 9.10.2007 and the first reply was given on 8.11.2007 i.e. within the stipulated period. He also held that the information already pro9vided by the CPIO was adequate and complete. Not content with the decision of the Appellate Authority, he has now approached this Commission in Second Appeal.
3. Since the Appellant was absent in spite of notice, the hearing was continued in his absence. The records enclosed with his Appeal Memo were carefully perused. The Respondents submitted that the CPIO had furnished all the information sought by the Appellant and there was nothing more to be given. On close scrutiny of the original application of the Appellant for information, it is noted that he had raised a large number of queries seeking pre-determined reply in terms of Yes or No or True or False from the CPIO concerned. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act defines information as material in any form, including records, documents, etc. Section 2 (j) defines Right to Information as right to such information which is held by or under the control of the Public Authority. Thus, information as defined under this Act does not include the types of queries and questions raised by the Appellant in his original application expecting replies in terms of simply Yes or No.
4. We note that the CPIO had never the less tried to furnish not only replies to these queries, but he also provided copies of documents and records in support of some of his replies. From a close perusal of the Appeal before us, it is noted that the Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the CPIO did not answer in Yes or No terms to his queries from 1 to 8. It is noted that his queries are not always specific and do not refer to any specific document or record maintained by the Bank. For example, his very first query, namely, whether Government of India guidelines in respect of payment of pension binds the State Bank of Hyderabad, is not clear as to which Government of India guidelines the Appellant has in mind. The CPIO can not be expected to carry out a research through the records of the Public Authority to find out replies in terms of Yes or No for the satisfaction of the Appellant. However, having said that, we would still expect the CPIO concerned to respond, not necessarily in terms of Yes or No as desired by the Appellant but by way of providing a copy of relevant document which contains the information required. In this case, the CPIO has not responded at all to some of these queries.
5. After having heard the submissions of the Respondents and having gone through the pleas made by the Appellant in his Appeal, we are of the view that the following information should be provided to the Appellant afresh along with the copies of supporting documents, if any:- (a) Copy of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme received from the State Bank of India along with the forwarding letter. (b) Copies of amendments to Pension Regulations, 1995 including the dates on which these amendments were approved by the Board. (c) A copy of the State Bank of Hyderabad (Employees Pensions) Regulations 1995 with updated amendments, if not already sent. (d) Copy of the Circular No. Per/1999-2000/42. (e) Copy of the Law Departments letter bearing No. Law/HO3/1052 dated 11.10.2007.
6. The above information along with copies of supporting documents, if any, should be provided to the Appellant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.
7. With the above directions we dispose off this appeal. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. Sd/- (Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar