RTI Disclosure Cannot Be Ordered Without Specific Identification of Withheld Information.

The petitioner, a former Bank of Baroda employee whose termination orders had been set aside by the Allahabad High Court, filed two RTI applications seeking, among other things, service records, personal files, circulars concerning jurisdictional changes, and approval notes relating to the Bank’s appeal.

The CPIO responded that the requests were voluminous, repetitive, and ambiguous, and supplied a note sheet recording approval to file the appeal; the First Appellate Authority and the Central Information Commission dismissed the petitioner’s challenges.

The petitioner had previously been permitted to inspect his personal file and, according to the Bank, inspected 17 files at its Regional Office.

He then challenged the Commission’s decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Commission’s dismissal of the petitioner’s second appeals warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner identified specific information held by the Bank, liable to disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that had been withheld.

The Court considered the Right to Information Act, 2005, under which a direction to disclose information requires identification of information that is held by the public authority and is liable to disclosure.

It also applied its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to review the Commission’s order, finding no basis for interference where the petitioner had not demonstrated that any specific, disclosable document had been withheld.

The Court found that the petitioner had been allowed to inspect his service records and that he had received the note sheet approving the Bank’s appeal.

Although he made general assertions about missing service records, personal files, jurisdictional-change circulars, and approval notes, he did not identify any particular document that remained undisclosed despite being held by the Bank and liable to disclosure.

The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the Commission’s order under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed.