Central Information Commission
Mr. Jasvir Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 22 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000736/SG/14797
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000736/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Jasvir Singh
603, Phase-II, Urban Estate
Durgi, Ludhiana(Punjab)
Respondent : Mr. Deepak Singhal
CPIO & Chief General Manager Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Department of Banking Operations and Development, Central Office, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 RTI application filed on : 06/09/2010 PIO replied on : 30/09/2010 First Appeal : 16/10/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 20/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 17/02/2011 Information Sought:
1.Jasvir Singh Control no. in cibil:439589026
2.period of info. Sought: Current
3.Description of Information:
a)the name of the bank/institution which recommended my name for defaulter list of CIBIL.
b)the name of the loan or number of the credit card due to which my name is shown defaulter by CIBIL.
Reply:
Information not available in the matter.
Grounds for the First Appeal/ Complaint:
Information not given by the PIO as is not available.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
CPIO is bound to give information which is held by the RBI. As regards the information available with CIBIL , the appellant may if so advised, have to follow the procedure laid down under the credit information companies(regulation) Act,2005 and the rules and regulations there under for accessing the same.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Jasvir Singh on video conference from NIC-Ludhiana Studio; Respondent : Mr. Abhilash, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Deepak Singhal, CPIO & Chief General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio; The PIO has informed the Appellant that the information that he is seeking is available with CIBIL and CIBIL does not appear to be a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant insist that CIBIL has been created by RBI but the respondent denies this. In view of this since the information is not available with the public authority and CIBIL who appears to be holding the information does not appear to be a public authority the information cannot be made available to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is not held by the Public Authority.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 22 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))