Swarnendu Das vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 March, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Swarnendu Das vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 March, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.08.2017 and first appeal dated 03.11.2017:-

Page 1 of 4

(i) Kindly furnish the name of top 20 corporate defaulters with amount of bad loan .as per records, papers or reports or press releases or documents of any governments i.e. Govt. of India.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.08.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 05.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.11.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 05.12.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 16.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 16.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 05.10.2017 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the decision taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Suvendu Sarkar, Assistant General Manager and Shri Ameet Tanksali, Assistant Legal Advisor, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while endorsing the reply given by the CPIO vide letter dated 05.10.2017 submitted that the names of top 20 corporate defaulters with amount of bad loans as per records, papers or reports or press releases or documents of any government i.e. Government of India were not available with them. Further the respondent submitted that as regards the quarterly data relating to top 20 NPA borrowers along with respective outstanding amount as reported by Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) to RBI, the data is collected as per Page 2 of 4 section 27 (2) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The respondent stated that as per section 28 of the Banking Regulation Act, RBI could only disclose information collected under section 27 (2) of the Act in such consolidated manner as it deems fit and that as per section 45 (e) of the RBI Act, it is prohibited to disclose credit related information. In view of this, the appellant was denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that due reply was given to the appellant vide letter dated 05.10.2017 and that the appellant has not disclosed any public interest that would be served upon disclosure of the information. In this regard, the Commission in CIC/RBIND/A/2017/167309 vide order dated 15.05.2019 observed the following:

"The logic of balance exercise of judicial power has an assurance of institutional stability and re-organization of boundary of power is implicit in the Constitutional arrangement. It is contended that the failings of democracy and inadequacies of the democratic process cannot be invoked to negate the core of the democratic principle, namely that ultimate sovereignty vests in the people. Thus, arrangements of governance embodied in the Constitution resulting from the exercise of their free will cannot be used to deprive the ultimate masters of the right of final decision over their destiny. It is argued that "juridification of politics and politization of the judiciary" would be a loss for both the legislature and judiciary and that judiciary cannot act as a "censor of all governmental action". There have been plethora of judicial orders highlighting the issue of restraint by judicial bodies in substituting their wisdom over those who have been assigned the function of implementation of Laws."

Page 3 of 4

6.1. Further, the appellant not having attended the hearing and not having filed any written submissions thereof, the submissions of the respondent are taken on record. 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) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 13.03.2020 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 DEPTT. OF BANKING SUPERVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRE - 1, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF BANKING SUPERVISION,CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRE - 1, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 SWARNENDU DAS Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission