Rajeev Agarwal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 24 November, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rajeev Agarwal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 24 November, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                           के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                     Central Information Commission
                         बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                      नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2021/627368

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal                               ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम

CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision,
Centre-1, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba,                            ... ितवादी/Respondent
Mumbai-400005

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-

RTI : 03-03-2021           FA    : 03-04-2021         SA      : 01-07-2021

CPIO : 30-03-2021          FAO : 16-06-2021           Hearing: 21-11-2022

                                 ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. The appellant sought the information is as under:-

Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 30-03-2021 had denied the information as sought by the appellant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 03-04-2021and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 16-06-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and dismissed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant was absent. The respondent, Smt. Rajlaxmi Sethi, Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The written submissions dated 18.11.2022 made by the respondent were taken on record.

5. The respondent while presenting their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has filed the RTI application dated 03.03.2021 with the Ministry of Finance seeking aforesaid information. However, the same was transferred to RBI under Section 6(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005. They stated that in the said application, the appellant, referring to various court cases pending against one Mr. Achalkumar Agarwal, inter alia, sought to know the details of Officer who recommended issuance of passport to Mr. Achalkumar Agarwal and whether the person to whom passport no. *******25 was issued is same as the person mentioned in various identifying documents specified by in the application.

6. The respondent submitted that they have replied to the appellant that information sought is not available with them. The appellant in his first appeal raised the issue that if the information was not available with the respondent the same should have been transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the respondent stated that under the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO can only provide the information held by them or available with them. The CPIO is not mandated to find out which authority is holding the requested information. They contended that the applicant should exercise his due diligence and approach the appropriate public authority for information.

Page 2 of 4

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant while referring to various court cases pending against one Mr. Achalkumar Agarwal, inter alia, sought to know the details of officer who recommended issuance of passport to Mr. Achalkumar Agarwal, whether the person to whom passport no. *******25 was issued is same as the person mentioned in various identifying documents specified in the RTI application. The respondent submitted that information sought was not available with them and accordingly reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 30.03.2021. At the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record.

8. In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.

9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.


                                                             नीरजकु मारगु ा)
                                         Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु       ा
                                                                सूचनाआयु )
                                      Information Commissioner (सू

                                                        दनांक / Date : 21-11-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)




Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Reserve Bank of India
      Department of Supervision, Centre-1
      World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade
                                                                        Page 3 of 4
      Colabad, Mumbai-400005

2.   Mr. Rajeev Agarwal




                              Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission