Central Information Commission
S. Srinivas vs Reserve Bank Of India on 12 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2022/647928
S. Srinivas ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India
Hyderabad ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 29.01.2021 FA : Not on record Complaint : Nil
CPIO : No Reply FAO : No Order Hearing : 05.03.2024
Date of Decision: 11.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "The sec. 4(1)(b) information of your office provide, with RTI I, II (a) Records in 2005 to 2020 period provide. (b) All A/c in India safe & protecting by govt. for cyber crime control taking steps provide.
(ii) U/s 4(1)(b) (iv)(v) all rules regulation codes, by laws G.O.S circulars etc. all following in all works of your & needed for the banks central WBFC et.c all provide.Page 1 of 3
(iii) The BRA with rules & case laws in 1949 to 2020 & negotiable out 1881 with rules regulation case laws in 1881to 2020 period provide with banking companies act 1970 with rules.
(iv) The RBI issued time to time all on each issue of banking service customer issues, loans, repayment, interests, TDS etc. in 1930 to 2020 provide in 4(1)(b). Banking Ombudsman rules provide.
(v) The ministry of finance 1950 to 2020 issued all time to time on such banking interests etc. issues provide in 4(1)(b)."
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of CPIO's reply, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
3. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Anjani Mishra, General Manager and Shri Amit, Assistant Legal Advisor, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had not received the RTI application dated 29.01.2021. The representatives further informed that upon receipt of the hearing notice, they obtained the relevant documents from the Registry of this Bench. They submitted that the RTI application was not sent at the correct address. However, having received a copy of the RTI application, the queries wherein pertained to different Branches, they assured to send an appropriate reply to the appellant, at the earliest.
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application was addressed to 'Reserve bank of India, Hyderabad', without the address details. Therefore, the respondent had not received the RTI application earlier. Moreover, perusal of the contents of the RTI application revealed that the complainant had not sought any material or specific information. During the hearing, the respondent admitted that they had obtained a copy of the RTI application and assured to given an appropriate reply to the Complainant, at the earliest. Further, in the absence of the Complainant or any written objections thereof, and Page 2 of 3 the matter not having been pressed for, no relief may be granted. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 11.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Regional Office, 6-1-56, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004
2. S. Srinivas Page 3 of 3