Satish H. Solanki vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 February, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Satish H. Solanki vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 01.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.06.2018 and first appeal dated 22.07.2018:-

 Provide details and documents related to the appellant's complaint against Mobikwik Services Pvt. Ltd. and Paytm wallet service by letter dated 06.02.2018 & 12.04.2018.

Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.06.2018 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 replied on 12.07.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 08.08.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 01.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 01.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2018 replied that the appellant's complaints were responded vide their letters dated 28.06.2018 and copies of the same were enclosed. The FAA vide his order dated 08.08.2018 agreed with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Priyanka Soni, Assistant Legal Adviser, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant's complaint was addressed and the same was informed to him vide their letter dated 12.07.2018 and 18.08.2018. They further informed that the appellant in his second appeal alleged that the information sought was denied by the CPIO was not true and there were no mala fide either to deny the information or to mislead the appellant by giving false information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply has been given by the respondent vide their letters dated 12.07.2018 and 18.08.2018. Moreover, the appellant has neither filed any objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the submissions made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. The Commission further feels Page 2 of 3 that there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सरु े शचं ा) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) #दनांक/Date: 17.02.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममत ू $) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPTT. OF PAYMENT & SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS, 14TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF PAYMENT & SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS, 14TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 Satish H. Solanki Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission