Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 February, 2021

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 26.12.2018 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 22.11.2018 are as under:-

(i) Penalty on the PIO (under Section 19(8)(c), of the RTI Act,2005)

(ii) Dismissal of the PIO on account of illegal, deliberate, mala fide and baseless

(iii) Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2) , of the RTI Act,2005 )

(iv) Recommendation to the RBI and the GOI - Ministry of Finance, for administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO/FAA

(v) Impose Maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 20(1) ,of the RTI Act,2005 Page 1 of 9

(vi) Direct the Respondents to refund the Application fee paid by Complainant while submitting RTI Application, as per section (7)(6) of the RTI Act

(vii) Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate.

(viii) Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondents for defying the provisions of the Act

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 27.11.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking following information:

i. Demonetization • Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each State of this country (with or w/o Post Office Receipts - with the minimum caveats as the RBI deems fit and reasonable, based on information available) • Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each Scheduled Bank of this country for the TOP 500 COLLECTION POINTS BY BANK NAME AND BRANCH • Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each Cooperative Bank of this country for the TOP 500 COLLECTION POINTS BY BANK NAME AND BRANCH • Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each State of this country • Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each Scheduled Bank of this country for the TOP 100 fake currency COLLECTIONS BY BANK NAME AND BRANCH • Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each Cooperative Bank of this country for the TOP 100 fake currency COLLECTIONS BY BANK NAME AND BRANCH Page 2 of 9 • PIO to confirm that the data received from the banks w.r.t Demo, are also available to the RBI w.r.t. Type of Accounts in which deposits were made (savings/current) and types of current accounts (individual/ corporate/partnership or proprietorship) • PIO to confirm that the data received from the banks w.r.t Demo, are also available to the RBI w.r.t. Type of business for the depositors (Exporters/Importers - traceable by IEC Code/ Diamonds and Gems and Jewellery - traceable by license and VAT Id/Agri Products Traders etc.) • PIO to confirm if any Inspection or Audit was carried out by the RBI under the RBI/BR Act w.r.t any bank in this country (or by any other 3 rd party agency), for the activities of the said banks during the course of the Demo Process, by the RBI o If Yes, the dates of the said inspection and audit, names of banks audited and scope of audit • PIO to confirm that any penalty was imposed by the RBI w.r.t the Inspection and Audit done of the banks by the RBI (or by any other 3 rd party agency), w.r.t the activities of the said bank during the Demo period o If Yes, the RBI to provide the names of the banks penalized, penalty amount and reasons for the penalty • PIO to confirm that the RBI has shared data with the RAW/IB/ED/CBI/CEIB/NIA/DRI/FIU etc or any other investigative /intelligence agency - w.r.t the data received by the RBI Related to Demonetization o If Yes, the PIO to confirm the name of the agency and the letter ref no and date of the letter or report sent by the RBI to the said investigative or intelligence agency • W.r.t. the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Goa, Orissa, Bengal, Assam, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the aggregate Demo Proceeds in the 1st 5 days and Day 5 to 10 (in 2 buckets), is sought - for the TOP 100 Collection Banking Points by Banks and Cooperative Banks Page 3 of 9 ii. RBI penalties and registration revocations • PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on private banks in the last 9 years as under: o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty • PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on PSU banks in the last 9 years as under:

o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty • PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on Cooperative banks in the last 9 years as under:

o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty • PIO to provide the list of Revocations of Registrations of NBFCs in the last 9 years • The Applicant has tried the search icon on the Press Release page of the RBI, and there is no search result as for example o There is Nil RELEVANT Result for "Monetary Penalty imposed on Deutshce Bank"

ohttps://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/SearchResults.aspx?search=RBI+IMP OSES+MONETARY+PENALTY+ON+D EUTSCHE iii. RBI inspection reports • The Applicant seeks a copy of the RBI or 3rd Agency Inspection/Audit Reports of the last 5 years of the PSU Banks and Cooperative Banks, wherein Penalty was imposed on the said Bank u/s 46 and 47A of the Banking Regulation Act (only to the extent of the inspection report, related to the penalty - as the PSU Banks are PAs - in any case, covered under the RTI Act, 2005, the matter is in public interest and in the case of Fraud and criminality - an FIR / Chargesheet is filed - and that makes it, as per a SC judgment - a public document- even o/s the scope of the RTI Act,2005) Page 4 of 9 • The Applicant seeks a copy of the RBI or 3rd Agency Inspection/Audit Reports of the last 5 years of the Private Banks, wherein Penalty was imposed on the said Bank u/s 46 and 47A of the Banking Regulation Act (only to the extent of the inspection report, related to the penalty - as the matter is in public interest and in the case of Fraud and criminality - an FIR / Chargesheet is filed - and that makes it, as per a SC judgment - is a public document- even o/s the scope of the RTI Act,2005) o PIO to note that as per Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act - Every Chairman who is appointed on a whole-time basis, Managing Director, Director, auditor liquidator, manager and any other employee of a banking company shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - which makes the staff of a private bank as public servants carrying out a limited public function • The PIO to provide the names of the banks w.r.t which the RBI Inspection Reports were submitted to the GOI u/s 45 (4) of the RBI Act, in the last 5 years • The PIO to provide the names of the banks w.r.t which the RBI Inspection Reports which were submitted to the GOI u/s 45 (4) of the RBI Act, in the last 5 years - WERE PUBLISHED BY THE GOI - u/s 45(5) of the RBI Act Note iv. RBI inspection of NPAs of Specified Accounts and Banks • PIO to confirm that it has carried out any specific inspection of NPA accounts as under in the last 5 years o https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/rbi-examines-200-npa- accounts-during-annual-inspection-of-bank-books-report- 2840451.html o If Yes, the PIO to provide a copy of the said report - as the event investigated id.est., CDR, NPA Classification, ever-greening etc., has Page 5 of 9 already occurred in the past, the names of the NPA Borrowers are in the public domain and it is in public interest to know that the Rules and Regulations were followed by the RBI w.r.t the said NPAs v. RBI letters sent to Investigative/Intel Agencies • RBI to provide data w.r.t all letters and reports sent by the RBI to the Investigative/Intel Agencies, such as RAW/IB/ED/CBI/CEIB/NIA/DRI/FIU or state level agencies etc in the last 5 years as under o Date and Reference No. of the Letters and/or Reports o Nature of Information Shared o Name of the Agency to whom letter sent o Name of the Officer or Designation in the Agency to whom letter sent (as an example JS(COFEPOSA) DDG-ECOINT etc.) • PIO to note that even if Section 24 exempts the Investigative/Intel Agencies - information related to allegations of corruption are exempted u/s 24 of the RTI Act.

o In addition, there are several CIC/HC Case laws, wherein it is held that even Section 24 entities have to provide data that has no bearing to security AND intelligence matters vi. RBI inspection reports on money laundering • PIO to confirm that it has prepared a report based on bank inspections

- which related to money laundering, in the last 5 years https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/business/rbi-to-share-banks- inspection-reports-on-money-laundering.html If yes, the PIO to provide a copy of the said report - as the matter is in public interest, relates to past events and to the extent of criminality and fraud -where FIR and Chargesheets are filed - the said information is a public document as per a SC Judgment Page 6 of 9 The CPIO vide letter dated 13.12.2018 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed a complaint dated 26.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 26.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant 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 13.12.2018and issued a common reply for all the three applications and advised the appellant to recast his application 'within the prescribed word limit of 500 words' and submit fresh applications with fee. The FAA vide its order dated 14.02.2019 directed the CPIO to re-visit the queries and give an appropriate reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok Parikh, CPIO and Ms Aradhana Ohri, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was not satisfactory and that the information which must be voluntarily disclosed to the appellant was deliberately not disclosed by the respondent. Further, the complainant submitted that the query in point no. 15 of the RTI application had a typographical error and the RBI Act may be read as Banking Regulation Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that in compliance of the directions of the FAA, they replied to the complainant again on 08.03.2019. Further, the reply dated 15.01.2021 was uploaded on the Commission's web portal and the same was also made available to the complainant and point-wise reply/information was given i.e. total number and value of Specified Bank Notes of Rs. 500 denomination returned from circulation were 17062.00 million pieces and Rs. 8531.00 billion respectively; total number and value of Specified Bank Notes of Rs 1000 denomination returned from circulation are 6779.73 million pieces and Rs. 6779.73 billion respectively. The RTI application was under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to NABARD for sharing of Page 7 of 9 information if any, available with them with respect to Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the and can be accessed from the Demo Process collected by each Co-operative Bank of this country for the TOP 100 fake currency collections. The complainant was provided the link in respect of the information which was already available in the public and that the link would directly refer to Table Vlll.8 and Vlll.9 of Chapter-VIII of Annual Report 2017-18 in respect of Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each Scheduled Bank. It was also informed that penalty was imposed on Urban Co-

operative Bank for observations in Inspection Report i.e. on Indian Mercantile Co- operative Bank Limited and a list of private sector banks whereupon penalties were imposed. In respect of point no. 15 of the RTI application there being no section 45 (4) of RBI Act, the query was not clear and the RTI application could not be amended at this stage.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that observes that due reply was given by the CPIO's letter dated 15.01.2021. The CPIO had replied to the complainant and therefore it may not be considered to be a case of non-response. Besides, the delay caused in the case appears to be inadvertent and point-wise information/reply being made available it may not be appropriate to initiate action under section 20 (1) of RTI Act. That being so there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 02.02.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 8 of 9 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESEREVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 THE F.A.A, RESEREVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 SAMIR SARDANA Page 9 of 9

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission