Dilip Shrishmal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 September, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Dilip Shrishmal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 September, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.12.2018 and first appeal dated 25.03.2019:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) On which date RBI ED (and Nominee Director in ECGC from RBI) sent the appellant's complaint to ECGC Ltd. in Oct/Nov 2018. Provide copy of such letter from RBI to ECGC Ltd.

(ii) On which date RBI ED (and Nominee Director in ECGC from RBI) received reply from ECGC in respected of her letter to ECGC as per point no. 1 as above.

(iii) On which date office of RBI ED (and nominee Director in ECGC from RBI) compared the reply of ECGC with complaint (DK/10/0264 dated 07.06.2018) of appellant, please inform details thereof.

(iv) On which date RBI ED (and Nominee Director in ECGC from RBI) responded to appellant, provide copy of such reply letter.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.03.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 20.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.05.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.01.2019 gave point-wise reply/information on all the points wherein against point no.1, the respondent provided the date on which RBI ED (and Nominee Director in ECGC from RBI) sent the appellant's complaint to ECGC Ltd. and denied copy of such letter after severing information exempted under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act; against point no. 2, the respondent provided date on which RBI, ED received reply from ECGC, Ltd.; against point no. 3, the respondent informed that query was not clear, however, reply was put up to ED, RBI and Nominee Director in ECGC on 26.11.2018; and against point no. 4, the respondent replied that since ECGC had directly written to the complainant Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, ED's office did not write to the complainant. The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Deepak Chikhale, CPIO and Mr. Rose Saprocho, Assistant Legal Adviser, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 30.01.2019. Thereafter, the appellant filed first appeal against the reply given by the CPIO against point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2019 while upholding the CPIO's reply stated that query raised on point no. 3 of the RTI application was not clear and against on point no. 4 also they had clearly explained the position. It was further submitted that information had been furnished to the appellant and nothing was left to the provided. Accordingly, they requested the Commission to dismiss the appeal.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide their letters dated 30.01.2019 and 07.05.2019. Moreover, there was neither representation, nor written submission on appellant's side to controvert the submissions made by the respondent. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. Further, 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) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date:27.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPTT. OF BANKING REGULATIONS, CENTRAL OFFICE, 12TH & 13TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICEBHAWAN, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGHMARG, MUMBAI - 400 001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RESERVE BANK OFINDIA, DEPTT. OF BANKING REGULATIONS, CENTRALOFFICE, 12TH & 13TH FLOOR, CENTRALOFFICEBHAWAN, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, Page 4 of 5 MUMBAI - 400 001 Sh.DILIP SHRISHRIMAL Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission