Ch. Satish Chandra vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 July, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ch. Satish Chandra vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 July, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.09.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 13.03.2019 and first appeal dated 03.04.2019:-

The appellant has an AXIS Bank account No. **********70 and he had checked the statement of account for the period 01.08.2017 to 31.10.2017 but he was unable to understand the merchant details in the statement. So, he sought following details under the RTI Act:-

(i) Merchant name or Outlet name where ATM card associated for this account has been swiped for the period 01.08.2017 to 31.10.2017.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) Location where the ATM card has been swiped for the period 01.08.2017 to 31.10.2017.

(iii) IP address, Date, Time & Amount debited of the POS machine where ATM card has been swiped for the period 01.08.2017 to 31.10.2017.

(iv) Provide me the login history or login activity details for this account such as Date, Time, IP address, Location where the appellant's account has been accessed online for the period 01.08.2017 to 28.02.2019.

(v) Provide duration, how long the above details will be retained so the same can be retrieved if required.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 13.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 28.03.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 04.09.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.09.2019 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 complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.03.2019 that RBI had no information to provide to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 10.05.2019 agreed with the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ashok J. Parikh, CPIO and Shri Abhijeet Kaushal, Law Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that being the controlling authority the RBI had full control over all banks including the private bank. Accordingly, he Page 2 of 4 contended that the respondent should have provided the information after obtaining the same from the Axis bank.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that appellant sought information regarding the merchant's name or outlet name where ATM card associated with his account maintained with Axis Bank was swiped and related information. They contended that they were not the custodian of the information sought by the appellant and accordingly the reply was given to the appellant. He further stated that the public authority was expected to provide only that information which was held by them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide their letters dated 28.03.2019 and 10.05.2019. It may not be out of place to mention that the RTI Act does not mandate a public authority to create information for the purpose of replying to an applicant. In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. ((2011)8SCC497) wherein, in paragraph 35, the Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as under: "35. ....... where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant....". In view of the above observations and replies given by the respondent, 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/-

                                                                                  सुरेश चं ा)
                                                               (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                               सूचना आयु )
                                                    Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                      दनांक/Date:15.07.2021
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


                                                                                       Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :
1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Human Resources Management
Department Central
Office Central Office
Building (21st Floor) Shahid
Bhagat Singh Marg,
Fort, Mumbai- 400 001

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
Human Resources Management Department

Central Office Central Office Building (21st Floor) Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001 CH. SATISH CHANDRA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission