Central Information Commission
Shri P. Dharamchand vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 July, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00989-SM dated 07.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 17 July 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri P. Dharamchand,
26 (Old No. 238),
Ramakrishna Mutt Road,
Mylapore, Chennai.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, D/o Administration &
Personnel Management,
Central Office, Reserve Bank of India,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,
Mumbai - 400 001.
The Appellant was represented by Shri Shanti Lal.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Unnikrishnan, CPIO, was present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had in his application dated 7 March 2008 requested the CPIO of the Union Bank of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for a number of information regarding the details of the properties including their value on the date of creation of equitable mortgage and the details of the amounts due from his company. The CPIO of the Union Bank of India replied on 2 April 2008 and provided the information point wise. The CPIO of the RBI, on the other hand, intimated on 11 April 2008 that the desired documents were not available with them and did not form part of the regulatory/supervisory returns to be submitted by the Banks. Not satisfied with the latter reply, the Appellant sent an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 18 April 2008 which that Authority dismissed in his order dated 16 May 2008 by holding that the CPIO had acted in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant had challenged this order in the second appeal.
3. The case was heard through videoconferencing. While the Appellant was present in the Chennai studio of the NIC, the Respondent was present in CIC/PB/A/2008/00989-SM the Mumbai studio. The main argument of the Appellant was that the RBI should have collected the information from the ICICI Bank even if they did not have it at the time of his application and it was wrong on their part to have denied it by claiming that the documents were not available with them. He relied on the definition of the expression "information" as in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:
"information" means any material in any form............... and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force.
4. He argued that the desired information concerned a Private Body and the RBI as the Regulator of Banks could access that information by using its powers under the relevant laws which gave it powers to supervise and regulate all the Banks in India. The Respondent argued that it could not be expected to access and summon information from Private Bodies on the requisition of information seekers by using its regulatory powers when it did not call for such information in the usual course of discharge of its powers and responsibilities vis-à-vis those Banks. We tend to agree with this argument. Section 2(f) should be read with Section 2(j) to appreciate what would constitute information for the purpose of the RTI Act. Section 2(j) reads as follows:
"right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any Public Authority.
5. The key expression here is the word 'held'; the information must be held by the Public Authority in order to be accessed by any information seeker. Thus, any information including that about any Private Body which the Public Authority would have accessed by exercising its powers under any other law has to be held by the Public Authority in its possession for the citizen to obtain. In other words, if the Public Authority does not hold the information, it cannot be compelled under any of the provisions of the RTI Act to collect it for providing to the information seeker. In this case, it is CIC/PB/A/2008/00989-SM worth noting that the RBI has very clearly said that not only does it not hold this information, the information does not also form part of the regulatory/supervisory returns which the Banks including the ICICI Bank have to submit regularly. In view of this, we cannot compel the CPIO of the RBI to collect the desired information for the benefit of the Appellant.
6. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/PB/A/2008/00989-SM