Sameer Das vs Reserve Bank Of India on 3 April, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sameer Das vs Reserve Bank Of India on 3 April, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.09.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.02.2017and first appeal dated 30.03.2017:-

1. Provide me the copy of loan application form along with documents submitted by Sameer Das in ICICI bank, Bhubaneshwar zonal office as per BCSBI code.

Page 1 of 3

2. What are incidental charges, on which basis bank can collect the incidental charges. Provide circular.

3. Using other banks ATM in current account are chargeable, if yes what are the charges. In a month how many times allowed using other banks ATM in current account. Provide circular.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.02.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking the aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 10.03.2017. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 12.04.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 11.09.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 11.09.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the respondents malafidely denied the information.

4. The CPIO replied on 10.03.2017 and stated that they do not have the information since the Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding Regional Rural Banks) have the freedom to fix service charges on various types of services rendered by them.

5.1. The appellant remained absent and Shri Sandeep Kumar, Law Officer, Reserve Bank of India attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent through Video Conferencing.

Page 2 of 3

5.2. The CPIO as well as Appellate Authority have given reasonable reply and has denied the record inter alia on the ground that the public authority may give information which is part of the record of a public authority and they are not under any obligation to provide information which is not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulations of the public authority. The appellate authority while endorsing the reply given by CPIO has relied upon the judicial pronouncement: CBSE Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] and P. Dharamchand vs Reserve Bank of India (CIC/PB/A/2008/00989-SM dated 17th July 2009).

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records made available and judicial pronouncements, feels that the replies given by the CPIO and appellate authority are reasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 02.04.2019 Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission