Central Information Commission
G. Sankar vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint Nos.
G Sanker ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the Appeal/Complaint(s):
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 621323 22.03.2024 08.04.2024 09.04.2024 09.05.2024 Nil
2. 625863 06.03.2024 04.04.2024 09.04.2024 09.05.2024 26.05.2024
&
13.05.2024
3. 630472 25.03.2024 23.04.2024 20.05.2024 19.06.2024 13.07.2024
&
12.07.2024
4. 631244 22.03.2024 19.04.2024 18.05.2024 18.06.2024 22.07.2024
5. 631267 17.03.2024 16.04.2024 13.05.2024 31.05.2024 22.07.2024
&
18.06.2024
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/Complaint(s) have been clubbed for decision as
these are based on RTI Application(s) relating to the same subject grievance.
Page 1 of 13
Date of Hearing: 03.04.2025
Date of Decision: 07.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/621323
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "In my cibil report unnecessarily showing one overdraft Loan account In ICICI Bank Allegedly account no. ******1477. I need statement of account from 02.08.2007 to 31.01.2021.
2. I Need ICICI Bank Allegedly ac no. ******1477 statement of account from 01.02.2021 to 31.10.2022.
3. I Need ICICI Bank Allegedly ac no. ******1477 statement of account from 01.11.2022 to 31.08.2023.
4. I Need ICICI Bank Allegedly ac no. ******1477 statement of account from 01.09.2023 to till date."
1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Information sought is not available with us."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated Nil.
Page 2 of 13Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/625863
2. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 06.03.2024 seeking information through 23 points in the following manner:
1. "Kindly arrange Current Status of My SB A/c no. ******5493.
2. Kindly arrange Current Status, Type of A/c of this Allegedly A/c no. ******1477.
3. A/c no. ******1477 If it is SB, Current, Overdraft or TOD Account mean. A/c opening application form copy. Arrange statement of account from inception to till.
4. A/c no. *****1477 kindly arrange account positions as on 02/08/2007.
5. Arrange A/c position as on 31/01/2021 & as on 28/02/2021 for A/c no.
******1477." etc. 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Query no. 1 - 21: Information sought is not available with us."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 09.04.2024. The FAA vide order dated 09.05.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO, however, directed the CPIO to re-examine query no.22 where the name, email etc. details of the ICICI Bank Chairman was sought for.
2.3. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied to the Complainant vide letter dated 13.05.2024.
2.4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 26.05.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/630472
3. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 25.03.2024 seeking information through 12 points as under:
1. "How many All department membership having CIBIL TRANSUNION in India Page 3 of 13
2. Who is the chair person of CIBIL TRANSUNION Furnish Name, address, Email, Contact number.
3. How Many NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANIES membership link with CIBIL TRANSUNION in India
4. CIBIL TRANSUNION membership of All NBFC name required in India
5. How many Private bankers Membership with CIBIL TRANSUNION in India..." etc. 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
1. "Information sought is not available with us.
2. The chairperson of TransUnion CIBIL (TUCIBIL) is Mr. V Anantharaman. You may also refer TUCIBIL website.
3. Query is not clear. However, it may be noted that 4490 NBFCs are members of TRANUNION CIBIL as on February 29, 2024.
4. Query is not clear.
5. Query is not clear."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 20.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO, however, directed to revisit points 4-9 based on the clarifications received from the Complainant in the First Appeal.
3.3. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied to the Complainant on 12.07.2024. Aggrieved with the delay caused by the CPIO in complying with the FAA's order and against the FAA's order on other points, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 13.07.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/631244
4. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.03.2024 seeking information through 10 points as under:
Page 4 of 13 "UNDER THE ACT OF RTI 2005, I need some clarification from Reserve Bank of India or CIBIL TRANSUNION
1. If any Rights having Private sector bank, to change from Savings Bank Account in to Current account without account holder signature. If yes kindly Mention RBI Act
2. If any Rights having Private sector bank, to change from current Account in to Overdraft account without account holder signature. If yes kindly refer RBI Act
3. If any Rights having Private sector bank, to change from Current account in to Temporary Overdraft facility account without account holder signature. If yes kindly mention RBI Act.
4. If I have an SB Account with Private sector Bank. Isit possible my account to shown with cibil report. If yes kindly mention RBI Act.
5. If I have an Current Account with Private sector Bank. Isit possible my account to shown with cibil report. If yes kindly mention RBI Act...." etc. 4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Query 1, 2, 3: Queries are not clear.
Query 4, 5, 6, 7: What is being sought is an opinion and not "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you may refer Section 17 and Section 2(d) of 'The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CICRA)' available in the public domain..."
4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 18.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.06.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO, however, directed the CPIO to revisit queries nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 in the light of the clarification provided in the appeal and to furnish a revised reply to the complainant by providing the available information, if any, within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the order Page 5 of 13 4.3. Alleging non-compliance of the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 22.07.2024.
Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/631267
5. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"I am the public. I have more than 10 Number of loan accounts with NBFC and BANKS But CIBIL TRANSUNION report is mentioned only 3 accounts in that report has 2 only mine another one is not related to me Here enclosed my transunion cibi report I NEED FOLLOWING INFORMATION NDER RTI 2005
1. What on the basis mentioned 3 no of accounts in my cibil report by transunion need explanation
2. Why not mention all my loan accounts in cibil report Transunion
3. Who is the controller of cibil transunion. Refer name of organization and address and contact number and email address
4. To whom I complaint on my cibi dispute . kindly refer organization name and address and contact number and email address
5. Shall I complaint regarding this issue to RBI CRM PORTAL."
5.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Query No. 1 and 2: We have no information in this regard.
However, applicant may refer, https://www.cibil.com/consumer-dispute-resolution Applicant may also approach the concerned credit institutions (Cis) for correction, if any.
Query No. 3: The query is not clear.Page 6 of 13
However, it may be noted that TransUnion CIBIL Limited has been issued Certificate of Registration under Section 5 of The Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CICRA, 2005) by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for carrying on the business of Credit Information in India.
Query No. 4 & 5: It is informed that to lodge a complaint related to deficiency in service against an entity regulated by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) i.e. a Regulated Entity (RE), the RE is the first focal point for redressal of customer complaints.
If the grievance is not redressed / no reply is given by the RE concerned within a period of 30 days (or) if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply received /given by the RE, the complainant can lodge the complaint against the RE involving deficiency in service' with the Reserve Bank of India, online on the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI's) Complaint Management System website https://cms.rbi.org.in for immediate generation of the registration number and issue of acknowledgement to the complainant. The documentary evidence relating to the complaint may also be submitted. If a complaint has already been registered, filing another complaint on the same matter is not required.
Note: The complainant can dial centralised Toll-Free number-14448 (Contact Centre) between 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM (weekdays except National Holidays) for Hindi and English, and in ten Regional Languages (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada, Marathi, Malayalam, Odia, Punjabi, Telugu and Tamil) from 9:30...."
5.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO, however, directed to provide a revised reply to point no.3 based on the clarifications received from the Complainant in the First Appeal and allowed 5 days' time period for compliance.
5.3. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied to the Complainant on 18.06.2024. Aggrieved with the delay caused by the CPIO in complying with the FAA's Page 7 of 13 order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 22.07.2024.
HEARING PROCEEDINGS & DECISION
6. The Appellant/Complainant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Vivek Mittal, Manager; Ayan Sharma, Legal Officer; Siddhant, CAPIO along with Deepika Kadrekar, Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The Appellant/Complainant merely harped at length to question the Section/provision of the RTI Act under which the CPIO has informed unavailability of information in the instant set of cases.
8. The Respondent reiterated the replies available on record and submitted with respect to Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2024/631244 that the FAA's order was complied with on 01.07.2024.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has replied to the instant RTI Applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, despite the fact that most of these RTI queries are all-pervasive, cumbersome and to a large extent unspecific and based on hypothesis and conjecture thus not strictly conforming to Section 2(f) & of the RTI Act, the FAA has acted in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act and allowed relief in some of the cases after trying to understand through the First Appeal grounds as to what specific information is being required by the Complainant.
It is apparent particularly based on the grounds of the instant complaint cases (in the backdrop of the nature of these RTI queries) seeking penal action against the CPIO for what the Complainant believes are negligent replies or replies that were provided after the expiry of the stipulated time frame by the FAA, without even appreciating that RTI Act does not require the CPIO to quote any exemption clause to inform the applicants about unavailable information or that despite not asking for any information as prescribed under Page 8 of 13 Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet being provided with clarifications and relevant inputs does not call for the intervention of the Commission against the CPIO. The written submissions filed by the Respondent in each of these cases adequately rebuts the allegations and apprehensions of the Appellant/Complainant leaving for no scope of intervention in the matters.
10. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant/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/Complainant'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 was held as under:
"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' Page 9 of 13 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;
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 Page 10 of 13 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)
11. Further, the Appellant/Complainant is also advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties Page 11 of 13 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
12. The CPIO is, however, directed to ensure that a copy of the written submissions filed by them in each of these cases is duly sent to the Appellant/Complainant within 7 days of receipt of this order.
13. Adverting to the foregoing observations, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO in the instant Second Appeal and as regards the Complaints, none of the grounds mentioned by the Complainant warrant action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
14. The Appeal and the Complaint(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, CPIO, Department of Regulation, Central Office, Central Office Building,12th & 13th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Page 12 of 13
2. G Sanker Annexure of Second Appeal/Complaint(s) Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No. 1 CIC/RBIND/A/2024/621323 2 CIC/RBIND/C/2024/625863 3 CIC/RBIND/C/2024/630472 4 CIC/RBIND/C/2024/631244 5 CIC/RBIND/C/2024/631267 Page 13 of 13 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)