Nutan Thakur vs Department Of Financial Services on 25 July, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nutan Thakur vs Department Of Financial Services on 25 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.10.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the Page 1 of 4 appellant through her RTI application dated 08.08.2018and first appeal dated 09.09.2018. For clarity extract of the RTI application is as follows:

"The Centre on Tuesday appointed RSS ideologue S. Gurumurthy and Satish Kashinath Marathe as part time non-official directors on the central board of Reserve Bank of India for four years. The department of personnel and training (DoPT) issued their appointment notification after the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi approved their names as recommended by the department of financial services, Ministry of Finance.

(i) Kindly provide a copy of the concerned file (including Notesheet and the various correspondences) in Department of financial services (DFS) as regards the above two appointments of Sri Gurumurthy and Sri Satish Kashinath Marathe in Reserve Bank of India.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.08.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 09.09.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 20.10.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.10.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.09.2018 replied that information sought by the appellant was part of cabinet papers which were exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1)(i) of the RTI Act. They also stated that information related to Page 2 of 4 disclosure of ACC note was pending in Delhi High Court in LPA No. 347/ 2010. The FAA vide order dated 05.10.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Under Secretary, Deptt. of Financial Services, Delhi attended the hearing through audio conference..

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought had not been furnished by the respondent so far. She argued that the respondent had denied the information and quoted a Delhi High Court order wherein a stay was granted for similar matter. She contended that a copy of written submissions filed by the respondent to the CIC was not provided to her and this was against the principal of natural justice. She requested the Commission adjourn this matter and also direct the respondent to give a copy of written submissions so that she could file counter submissions in the next date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought forms part of cabinet papers which were exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act. They also argued that the matter related to disclosure of ACC note was pending in Delhi High Court in LPA no. 347/2010. They also informed the Commission that since the matter related to disclosure of ACC note was sub-judice before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court hence requested to wait for the final order of the court.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent have not furnished a copy of their written submissions to the appellant and in the absence of which the appellant could not submit her counter submissions before the Commission. Both parties have exchanged their email ids during the course of hearing. The respondent is directed to serve a copy of their written submission to Page 3 of 4 the appellant and the appellant is given a final opportunity to file her counter submissions in response to the respondent's submissions. All written submissions must be exchanged amongst themselves and the resultant submission must reach the Commission within three weeks. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.06.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 3rd floor, Jeevan Deep Building Parliament Street, New Delhi THE F.A.A, Department Of Financial Services, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi Powered Nutan Thakur Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission