Dhiraj Wala v. Bank of Baroda, Central Information Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Shri Dhiraj Wala, filed an application dated 23.11.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Baroda, seeking information related to the classification of Bank of Baroda's Sayajigunj Branch Vadodara as a "Metro" branch and details concerning the bank's appearances and payments in a consumer court case (CC/1229/2016) at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara. The CPIO responded on 24.12.2021, rejecting the application on the ground that the appellant had not paid the requisite RTI fee as prescribed. The appellant filed a first appeal dated 02.01.2022, but the First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Subsequently, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 03.03.2022 before the Central Information Commission, which is under consideration in this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant was entitled to receive the requested information regarding the classification of the Bank of Baroda Sayajigunj Branch Vadodara and details of the bank’s legal representation and fees paid in the consumer court case.

Whether the CPIO was justified in rejecting the RTI application due to non-payment of the prescribed fee.

Whether the appellant complied with the procedural requirements for payment of the RTI application fee as per the RTI Act and Rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that the respondent had not provided the requested information within the stipulated time limit.

The appellant sought a direction from the Commission to the CPIO to provide complete information and to take necessary action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent submitted that the appellant's initial RTI application dated 23.11.2021 was rejected because it did not enclose the requisite RTI fee of Rs. 10/- as prescribed under the RTI Rules.

The respondent stated that after the appellant filed a fresh application with the proper fee, point-wise information was provided vide letter dated 30.04.2022.

The respondent clarified that the Sayajigunj Branch was classified as a "Metro" branch as per the bank's guidelines at the relevant time.

Regarding the consumer court case, since it was sub-judice, the respondent advised obtaining certified copies of hearings from the concerned court/forum.

The advocate representing the bank was identified as Mr. Dilip Shinde, and fees were paid according to the bank's fee structure.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission considered the facts and circumstances, including the appellant's initial failure to pay the prescribed RTI fee, which is mandatory under the RTI Act and Rules. The CPIO's initial rejection of the application was based on non-compliance with the fee payment rules. After the appellant submitted a fresh application with the requisite fee, the CPIO provided a detailed response addressing the appellant's queries. The Commission found that the information was duly provided and that there was no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the procedural requirements must be adhered to and that the appellant's grievance was resolved by the subsequent information provided.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant's second appeal is rejected on the basis that the requisite RTI fee was not initially paid, and once the fee was paid, the information was furnished. No new precedent was established by this decision. The parties are to receive a copy of the decision free of cost.

Dhiraj Wala v. Bank of Baroda

केीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग

,मिु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दली, New Delhi - 110067 ितीय अपील संया / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/110028 Dhiraj Wala … अपीलकता

/Appellant

VERSUS

बनाम

CPIO: Bank of Baroda, Baroda … ितवादीगण/Respondents Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 23.11.2021	FA : 02.01.2022	SA : 03.03.2022
CPIO : 24.12.2021	FAO : No Order	Hearing : 22.06.2023

CORAM:

Hon'ble Commissioner

SHRI SURESH CHANDRA

O R D E R

(30.06.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.03.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.11.2021 and first appeal dated 02.01.2022:-

(i) Date of declaration of Bank of Baroda, Sayajigunj Branch Vadodara as "Metro" branch for banking operation in this branch.

(ii) Dates on which Bank of Baroda Sayajigunj Branch Vadodara's officer / advocate(s) appeared for submission of replies/documents, hearing, arguments, etc., in the Honorable District Consumer Distress Redressal Forum, Vadodara from 13.12.2016 to till date with regard to Consumer Court Case No.:

CC/1229/2016.

(iii) Name of Bank of Baroda Sayajigunj branch Vadodara's officer / advocate(s) appeared for submission of replies/documents, hearing, arguments, etc., in the

Page 1 of 4

Honorable District Consumer Distress Redressal Forum, Vadodara from 13.12.2016 to till date with regard to Consumer Court Case No.: CC/1229/2016.

(iv) Fee(s) paid, on each date of appearance, to Baroda Sayajigunj Branch Vadodara's advocate(s) for submission of replies/documents, hearing, arguments, etc., in the Honorable District Consumer Distress Redressal Forum, Vadodara from 13.12.2016 to till date with regard to Consumer Court Case No.:

CC/1229/2016.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.11.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Baroda, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.12.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.01.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 03.03.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.03.2022 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.12.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"It is observed a Court Fee of Rs. 20/- is affixed on your said application, which is not a proper mode of payment of fee as per Rule 6 of Right to Information Rules, 2012 information. Please note that we are public authority under the jurisdiction of Central Government. We shall process your aforesaid RTI application on deposit of requisite application as per prescribed mode. You are advised to resend fresh application along with prescribed fee."

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Balram Singh, Dy. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Vadodara attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the information, within stipulated time limit.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had not enclosed the requisite RTI fee of Rs. 10/- along with his RTI application dated 23.11.2021. Therefore, they had rejected the application. Subsequently, the appellant had filed a fresh application with the RTI fee and they had provided point-wise information vide letter dated 30.04.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:

"i. Sayajiganj Branch has been classified as 'Metro' branch in terms of bank's guidelines issued at relevant point of time.

ii. Since the matter is sub-judice, certified copies of hearings may be obtained from the court/forum concerned.

iii. Mr. Dilip Shinde, bank's empanelled advocate has been entrusted with the insant matter.

iv. Fees for defending the bank is paid to the advocate as per bank's fee structure."

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 30.04.2022. Further, the appellant must follow the mandate for depositing the RTI fee, as prescribed under the RTI Act and RTI Ruled. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) ( सुुुरेु ेे ेशचंंंंा) Information Commissioner (सूूूचू नाआयुुुु

)

दनांक/Date: 30.06.2023

Page 3 of 4

Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममतू ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक)

011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO

BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL MANAGER,

BARODA CITY REGION, 5TH FLOOR,SURAJ

PLAZA-III, SAYAJIGUNJ,BARODA,

GUJARAT390005

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY

BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL MANAGER,

BARODA CITY REGION, 5TH FLOOR,SURAJ

PLAZA-III, SAYAJIGUNJ,BARODA,

GUJARAT390005

SHRI DHIRAJ WALA

Page 4 of 4

CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/110028

Dhiraj Wala v. Bank of Baroda

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Dhiraj Wala v. Bank of Baroda

Comments