Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

R C Panwar vs Reserve Bank Of India on 18 August, 2021

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                     के ीयसूचनाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                 बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2019/135115

R C Panwar                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Bandra (E), Mumbai                                   ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11.12.2018               FA    : 17.01.2019         SA     : 25.06.2019

CPIO : 10.01.2019              FAO : 22.02.2019           Hearing : 09.07.2021


                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                       ORDER

(17.08.2021)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated11.12.2018 and first appeal dated 17.01.2019:-

(i) बगैर लाइसस के ब कग कारोबार करना "लोक यूसस (Public Nuisance) है या ब कग कारोबार करना आवेदनकता का िविधक अिधकार है, आपक िनयम बुक म इसको िजस पृ पर अं कत कया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(ii) बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम 1949 धारा 36(ए) (2) क "कायवाही या होती है"

आपक िनयम बुक म इसको िजस पृ पर िव तृत प से दशाया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव! Page 1 of 5

(iii) बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम 1949 धारा 36 (ए) (2) क कायवाही "लोक संपि क हािन का िनवारण" करने के िलए क जाित है या आर.बी.आई के िनजी िहतलाभ के िलए क जाती है, आपक िनयम बुक म इसको िजस पृ पर अं कत कया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(iv) बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम 1949 धारा 36(ए) (2) क "कायवाही कब ारं भ क जाती है" आपक िनयम बुक म इसको िव तृत प से िजस पृ पर दशाया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(v) बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम 1949 धारा 36(ए) (2) क कायवाही करते समय खाताधारको के "खाते म जमा रकम क सुर ा क व था क प र या िविध" को आपक िनयम बुक म िजस पृ पर दशाया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(vi) बीकानेर अरबन को-ऑपरे टव बक ने आर.बी.आई. के प दनांक 08 जनवरी 1988 म "चाही गयी/वांिछत अपे ाओ क पू त नह क है" तो इसके िव बककारी िविनयमन अिधिनयम 1949 धारा 36(ए) (2) क कायवाही करने के आदेश क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(vii) शहरी बक िवभाग जयपुर का आ ापक आदेश दनांक 08 जनवरी 1988 क पालना िनधा रत समयाविध म नह करने का अपराध "जमानतीय अपराध है या गैर जमानतीय अपराध है", आपक िनयम बुक म इस त य को िजस पृ पर अं कत कया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव!

(viii) शहरी बक िवभाग जयपुर का आ ापक आदेश दनांक 08 जनवरी 1988 क पालना िनधा रत समयाविधम नह करने का अपराध " यूसे स या आशं कत खतरे के अजट मामले"

क ेणी का अपराध है या कसी अ य ेणी का अपराध है, इस त य को आपक िनयम बुक म िजस पृ पर अं कत कया गया है, उस पृ क छाया ित उपल ध कराव! Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.12.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Reserve Bank of India, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.01.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 25.06.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 25.06.2019 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 free of cost and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.01.2019 gave point-wise reply on all the points wherein they stated that information sought on point nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8 of the RTI application was in the form of seeking opinion which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Against point nos. 2 and 5, it was informed that information sought was available on their website and provided link of the portal i.e., www.rbi.org.in - 'Publication - Occasional'; against point no. 4 and 6, they provided copies of the RBI's circulars dated 03.12.1966 and 03.03.1984 to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 22.02.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Deepak Chikhale, CPIO, Ms. Debi.S. Hari, Legal Officer, Shri Dayanand Gund, Asstt. Legal Officer, Ms. Manisha Aggarwal, Legal Officer and Ms. Suchita Vinayak Vazkar, AGM, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The respondent while defending their CPIO's reply dated 10.01.2019 and the FAA's order dated 22.02.2019 inter alia submitted that they had provided the available information including weblink of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and copies of the relevant circulars issued by RBI. In respect of other queries wherein the appellant wanted to know whether non-compliance of the letter dated 06.01.1988 within prescribed time Page 3 of 5 limit was a bailable or non bailable offence/urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger etc., it was submitted that information sought was in the form of seeking opinion and the same did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

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 10.01.2019 and 22.02.2019. Perusal further reveals that the appellant had filed approximately two dozen applications which are repetitive. Moreover, the appellant neither filed any written explanation nor present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent were taken on record. The Commission further feels that there is 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) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.08.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPTT. OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK REGULATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, C-7, 1ST FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400 051 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEPT. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING (21ST FLOOR) SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, FORT MUMBAI - 400001 SH. R C PANWAR Page 5 of 5