Munna Prasad vs Reserve Bank Of India on 20 August, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Munna Prasad vs Reserve Bank Of India on 20 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.03.2018 and first appeal dated 12.04.2018:-

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply. Dissatisfied with the non-

response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.04.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 07.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 07.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondents did not respond to the RTI application as well as to the first appeal.

4. As per records presented by the appellant, the CPIO and FAA did not reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Deepak Chikaley, Deputy General Manager and CPIO, and Surya Kumar, General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through the audio conference.

5.1. The respondent submitted that the appellant had not presented complete facts and documents before the Commission. The respondent further submitted that they had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 12.04.2018 and had claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act and sections 45 (c) and 45 (e) of RBI Page 2 of 4 Act, 1935. However, in view of the changed legal position in respect of disclosure of names of willful defaulters, they were in a position to provide the information requested for by the appellant. Further, the list of relevant circulars/guidelines/ were available on their website.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent claimed to have replied vide letter dated 12.04.2018 wherein information was denied. However, the respondent have undertaken during the course of hearing to disclose the information in view of the legal position laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry v. Reserve Bank of India. In view of this, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide the information to the appellant within three weeks from date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 19.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Human Resources Management Department Central Office, Central Office Building (21st Floor) Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort Mumbai-400001 Page 3 of 4 THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, Human Resources Management Department, Central Office, Central Office Building (21st Floor), Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 MUNNA PRASAD Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission