Aniwesh Kumar Bhatt vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 June, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Aniwesh Kumar Bhatt vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 June, 2022

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                            के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
                       नई द ली,

ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
               Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2020/689021

Mr. Aniwesh Kumar Bhatt                             ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                                              /Appellant
                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO                                                ... ितवादी/Respondent
                                                            /Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision
Centre-1,
       1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai
                      Mumbai-400005

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
                                 appeal:

RTI : 08-07-2020            FA     : 14-08-2020          SA       : 14-10-2020
                                                                    14

CPIO : 07-08-2020           FAO : 04-02-2021             Hearing: 20-06-2022
                                                                  20

                                  ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) (CPIO)Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.The The appellant seeking informationis as under:-

under:

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 07-08-2020 has given reply to the appellant.

appellant Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file filed first appeal dated 14- 08-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide its order dated 04-02-2021 0 2021 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that Page 1 of 3 information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Lokesh, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video-conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 16.06.2022 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 07.08.2020, they have already provided the relevant reply to the appellant as per their existing records well within prescribed time limits as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the time interval at which the Board of Directors of nationalized banks must mandatorily meet according to the laws and rules of the Govt etc. The respondent has contended that suitable reply has already been provided to the appellant within stipulated time frame. The Commission observes that the respondent in its reply dated 07.08.2020 has referred to Clause 12 (1) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970/1980 which states that meetings of the board shall ordinarily be held at least six times in a year and at least once in each quarter. It has further been informed that The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme 1970/1980 is available in public domain as well.

7. In this context, the observation of the Commission in Anil Kumar vs. Ministry of law & Justice (Case No. CIC/SSIN/2012/000244) decided on 29.06.2012,are relevant in this regard:-

"Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the appellant had sought certified copies of 120 Central Acts, which are already available in the public domain. The respondent have no disclosure obligation to provide certified copies of such Acts which are already available on the website of Ministry of Lw & Justice.

Page 2 of 3

The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent."

8. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has already provided an appropriate reply as per the records available in their office and the said reply is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission.

9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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



                                                            नीरजकु मारगु ा)
                                        Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु       ा
                                                               सूचनाआयु )
                                     Information Commissioner (सू

                                                        दनांक / Date : 20-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)

S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)


Addresses of the parties:

1.    CPIO
      Reserve Bank of India
      Department of Supervision
      Centre-1, World Trade Centre
      Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005

2.    Mr. Aniwesh Kumar Bhatt




                                                                        Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission