Anand Madhav Salve vs Syndicate Bank on 13 November, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anand Madhav Salve vs Syndicate Bank on 13 November, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.09.2017 and first appeal dated 01.11.2017:

Page 1 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai, seeking Page 2 of 6 aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 25.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 29.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that information sought was not provided by the CPIO. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.10.2017 replied that collection and compilation of the information sought by the appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank, hence, could not be given as per Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 29.11.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and Shri Anup Kumar, Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Bandra (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant submitted that he was an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and was gathering data relating to loans given to the scheduled castes through state channelizing agencies in Maharashtra. He submitted that the RBI had laid down guidelines through several circulars for submission of the data and that the Head Office of each bank had an obligation to review the data relating to credits extended to the SCs/STs. He further submitted that the Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Indian Overseas Bank had already shared the information and the respondent bank should also furnish the said information. The appellant referred to the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard and explained the necessity of disclosure of the information:

(i) RBI issued circular vide DBOD No. BP.BC./C.469(86) dated 14.04.1981 on credit facility to SC/ST and the RBI had instructed to banks for not insisting on collection of deposit and disbursement of loan.

(ii) The RBI circular dated 05.11.1982 regarding grant of concessional finance to SC/ST Development Corporation was issued.

Page 3 of 6

(iii) RBI circular dated 02.07.2007 was issued for special emphasis towards welfare of SC/ST and should be ensured that applicable subsidy is not held back while releasing the loan component till full payment of bank dues. Further, advances sanctioned to state sponsored organizations of SC/ST for the specific purpose and supply of inputs to and/or the marketing outputs of the beneficiaries viz. artisans, village and cottage industries of these organization, should be treated as priority sector advances. In 2007, it was also advised to create a special cell to monitor the flow of credit to SC/ST beneficiaries. The head office was instructed to periodical review on the basis of return and other data received from branches.

(iv) RBI/2008-09/43RPCD.NO.SP.BC.5/09.09.01/2008-09 (July 2008) stated that the National SC/ST Finance and Development Corporation has been set up under the administrative control of Ministry of Welfare. Therefore, banks should advise their branches/controlling offices to render all the necessary institutional support to enable the institution to achieve the desired objectives.

(v) The RBI circular dated 01.07.2014 states that a periodical review should be made by the Head Office of the banks of credit extended to SCs//STs on the basis of returns and other data received from the branches. The RBI circular dated 01.07.2017 was issued stating that the major gap or variation in credit flow to SC/ST on a year to year basis should be reported to the Board of the Bank for review under the themes of "financial inclusion" in terms of the circular DBR NO. BC. 93/29.67.001/2014-15 dated 14.05.2015.

(vi) As per the circular RBI/2019-20/06 FIDD.CO.GSSD.BC.No.03/09.09.01/2019-

20 dated 01.07.2019 under clause 6.1. which states that the cell would be responsible for collections of relevant information/data from the branches, consolidation thereof and submission of the requisite return to RBI and Government.

5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought very large amount of information and collection and compilation of this information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, hence, could not be given under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent sought four months time for Page 4 of 6 compilation of information. They assured the Commission that they would provide the information after compilation of the same.

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 bank being an instrumentality of the state, partly discharges government functions and is expected to act in accordance with the statutory duties conferred upon them. The Reserve Bank of India has conferred upon them duties of reporting and collecting information/data from branches towards credit flow to SCs and STs even through government agencies. The respondent sought four months' time for compilation of data and the appellant has not raised any objections thereof. Moreover, the information relating to the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes must be updated by the public authorities on their respective websites as per section 4 (1) (b) (xii) of the RTI Act read with Reserve Bank of India's mandate. In view of this, the respondent is granted time of four months and accordingly the information be compiled in accordance with law in force and made available to the appellant and submit a compliance report to this Commission at the end of four months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner(सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/ Date:13.11.2019 Authenticated true copy (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त ) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO, SYNDICATE BANK ZONAL OFFICE, MAKER TOWERS - E WING, 2ND FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI- 400005 THE F.A.A, SYNDICATE BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, MAKER TOWERS - E WING, 2ND FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI- 400005 ANAND MADHAV SALVE, Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission