Central Information Commission
R V Sahasrabuddhe vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/RBIND/A/2022/106437
R V Sahasmbuddhe ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/o CPIO Reserve Bank of
India Departement of
Supervision, Central Office,
Centre- 1, Cuffee Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/08/2023
Date of Decision : 22/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11/11/2020
CPIO replied on : 23/12/2020
First appeal filed on : 27/01/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 02/02/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2020 seeking the following information pertaining to financial matters of the following banks:
(i) Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. &
(ii) The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd.1
"1. Quantum of the assessed gross non-performing assets (NPA) as at the end of the financial year 2020. If the information for the said financial year is not available, the information available latest be provided.
2. Break-up of the NPA at (1) above with reference to the category of loans disbursed (i.e NPA assessed in respect of home loans, industrial loans etc.
3. Name of top five borrowers (in descending order the assessed NPA) to whom the loans disbursed have been assessed as NPA as at the end of the financial year 2020. Indicate the amount of NPA attributable to each of these borrowers. If the Information for the said financial year is not available, information available for the latest proceeding year be provided.
4. Whether RBI has issued any communication in the last three financial years ending 2020 and thereafter, till the date of this Application. If yes, certified copies thereof in the matter of assessed NPAs.
5. Whether Government of India. and any other regulatory/Supervisory authority for these banks has been apprised by RBI in the matters related to NPA. If yes, indicate the name and address of the authority. The information is required for the last three financial years ending 2020.
6. A certified xerox copy of the latest balance sheets.
7. Recommendations/directions made by RBI to these banks based on the latest financial inspection conducted by RBI. The information is required with reference to gross assessed NPA. If yes, provide gist of such communication.
8. Whether RBI has decided or has submitted to an appropriate authority plan for-
(a) abrogating the present status of these banks as cooperative banks
(b) restructuring reorganization / merger / amalgamation of these banks.
9. The following information is required regarding Saraswat Cooperative Bank only:
(a) The Saraswat Bank decided a few months back to disallow use of withdrawal slip for purpose of cash withdrawal from the account by concerned account holder. A certified xerox copy of communication issued by this bank to its branches in this matter.2
b) Whether RBI has issued any communication to this bank in the matter indicated at (a) above.
10. The following information is required in regard to banking Industry in India: - Whether RBI posts any reports on financial Inspection of banks, or any observations / recommendations on financial position of banks, which in its opinion is a matter of public Interest, in public domain of RBI. If yes, provide steps to access such Information by a member of public."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 23.12.2020 stating as under:
"1. It is advised that supervisory process /1 action in respect of RBI Inspection Reports of COSMOS UCB and Saraswat UCB for FY 2019 is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this stage is considered premature in terms of Para 77 of the Honorable Supreme Court Judgement dated December 16, 2015, in 'Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal Misty Case' [2016(3) SCC 525]. Hence the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Information is not available.
3. Please refer to reply to query no. 1.
4. In respect of the assessed NPA, no communication was made with Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd while in case of Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd, supervisory instructions containing certain prohibitions and advice were issued with respect to financial position as on March 31, 2019. Copy of the letters issued to Cosmos Cooperative Bank Ltd are exempted from disclosure under Sec 8(1)(a) of RTI Act. 2005 read with Pare 77 of the Honorable Supreme Court Judgement dated December 16, 2015, in 'Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal Mistry Case (2016(3) SCC 525).
5. No regulatory/supervisory authority for these banks has been apprised by RTI in the matters related to NPA in the last three yews. However, the Inspection Reports of the banks for the last three years, which inter alia, contain assessed NPA figures, have been sent by RBI to Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (CRCS) . New Delhi as they are multi-state UCBs, as per usual practice.3
Address of CRCS: Joint Secretary (Coop.) & Central Registrar Room No :2970 Department of Agriculture. Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001
6. Copy of balance sheets as on March 31, 2020, for these two banks is attached.
7. Please refer to reply to query No. 4 above.
8. Information sought is not available.
9. (a) Information sought is not available.
(b) RBI has not issued any communication to this bank in the above matter.
10. What is sought is an opinion and not an information in terms of Section
(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2021. FAA's order, dated 10.11.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO for all the queries except query no. 1 and 3.
In compliance to the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 30.11.2021 replied for query no. 1 and 3 as under:
"Point No. 1:
The supervisory process/ action in respect of RBI inspection reports of Cosmos CBL and Saraswat CBL for the financial year 2019-2020 is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this juncture Is considered premature in terms of para 77 of the Honorable Supreme Court judgment dated December 16. 2015 in 'Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal Misty Case' (2016(3) SCC525.
For disclosure of the assessed gross non-performing assets (NPAs) as at the end of the financial year 2918-19 of COSMOS CBL and Saraswat CBL, a notice under Section 11(1) of RTI Act, 2005 has been issued to respective banks seeking their comments in the matter. On receipt of the reply from them, further correspondence will be made.4
Point No. 3:
The supervisory process (action In respect of RBI inspection reports of Cosmos CBL and Saraswat CBL for the financial year 2019-2020 is not yet complete. Disclosure of such information at this juncture Is considered premature in terms of pare 77 of the Honorable Supreme Court Judgment dated December 16. 2015 in 'Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal Mistry Case' (2016(3) SCC525).
For disclosure of the information of I top five borrowers (in descending order of the assessed NPAs) as at the end of the financial year 2018-2019 of COSMOS CBL and Saraswat CBL, a notice under I Section 11(1) of RTI Act, 2005 has been issued to the respective banks seeking their comments in the I matter. On receipt of the reply from them, further correspondence will be made."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Sangeeta Sheoran, Manager and Jeet Pathak, Assistant Legal Advisor present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent, during the hearing, submitted that vide their letter dated 23.12.2020, complete point-wise reply/information was provided to the Appellant on his RTI application. The Respondent further submitted that at the stage of first appeal, the FAA vide its order dated 10.11.2021 had directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant on point nos. 1 and 3 of the RTI application.
Therefore, accordingly, the CPIO vide its letter dated 02.09.2022 had furnished revised reply/information to the Appellant.
On a query from the Commission regarding the delay in providing a reply to the Appellant, the Respondent submitted that due to restrictions on account of COVID
-19 pandemic, the reply was not dispatched on time, however, the same was uploaded on RTI portal within the stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
5The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the main premise of the instant appeal was non-receipt of desired information. The Commission observes that the CPIO clarified that the factual position in the matter wherein complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record was provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 23.12.2020 and 02.09.2022.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
The Commission further observes that some queries as sought by the Appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking explanation, opinion, advice from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the Appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the Applicants if it is available on record of the public authority.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Complainant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
6"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic 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;7
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8