S Loganathan vs Department Of Financial Services on 11 December, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Loganathan vs Department Of Financial Services on 11 December, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.09.2017 and first appeal dated 19.12.2017:-

Page 1 of 5

• As a complaint had been filed to the Ministry of Finance as far back as 22.10.2010 and 10.01.2011, a reminder complaint had been filed on. 09.09.2017 informing of the failure in their duty to act as per their mandate under the Constitution.

In this context the following informationlrecord/documents under the RTI Act are requested:

(i) as to what action had been taken by you on my complaint letter dated 09.09.2017?

(ii) as to whether any direction had been issued to the Reserve Bank of India, to act as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for failure to adhere to the KYC norms mandatory under law?

(iii) if any show-cause notice has been issued to State Bank of India for violation of KYC norms as was done by the Finance Secretary for violation and non-adherence to KYC norms in response to the expose by Cobrapost? If yes, a copy of the same may be provided.

(iv) what action whatsoever had been taken by the Ministry. of Finance on my complaint dated 09.09.2017, especially regulatory action with regard to the violation of KYC norms and RBI guidelines?

(v) if the officials of Ministry of Finance are bound by the directives issued by the Government in D.Q. NO. G-13013/112006-PG, notification on complaint handling issued to all Departments by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, and whether any similar directions have been issued by the Ministry of Finance7A copy of the same may be provided.

Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Financial Services, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 19.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 27.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.01.2018inter alia on the grounds that no response/communication was received from the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information free of cost immediately under the RTI Act and recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO.

4. The CPIO did not reply. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Subhash Chandra Amin, Under Secretary, Department of Financial Services, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant submitted that the bank had acted negligently and maliciously towards him and his firm, by not acting in conformity to the RBI guidelines and have committed a breach of law under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Bank failed to provide the account opening details of one 'Real Estate Venkatesh' bearing A/c no. xxxxxxxxxx326 which the Bank purports to be the appellant's firms' account. The appellant further submitted that the account opening form's copy as per KYC Norms are relevant and crucial to expose these Page 3 of 5 anomalies. The bank admitted through affidavit that they committed a mistake. He made complaints to Department of Financial Services, the respondent.

5.2. The respondent submitted that they had sent a letter dated 25.10.2017 and intimated the appellant that his complaint had been referred to the vigilance section. The appellant had also lodged a complaint dated 12.02.2018 before the Registrar, High Court of Madras. The respondent further submitted that they had sent a reply dated 04.04.2018 with respect to the information regarding action taken on his complaint dated 12.02.2018.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent contended that they had furnished their reply to the appellant although the appellant has denied receipt of the same. In view of this, the respondent is directed that point- wise specific information in tabulated form be made available to the appellant again within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned 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: 10.12.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI THE F.A.A, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI S LOGANATHAN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission