B Sudhakara Rao vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

B Sudhakara Rao vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 July, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.12.2017 and first appeal dated 23.01.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

The appellant has requested for the data in respect of number of Branches, Total Business, Total Deposits, Total Advances, Gross profit, Net Profit, Owned, Share Capital, Reserves & Surplus, Working Capital, Investments, CD Ratio, CRAR, Gross NPAs, Net NPAs & Total Business to Priority Sector pertaining to the following 14 Urban Cooperative BankS in Telangana State from the financial year 2007-08 to the financial year 2016-17:

1. A P Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank 2. Adarsh Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Ltd.

3. Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank 4. Bhadradri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Ltd.

5. Bhavana Rishi Co-operative Urban 6. Darussalam Co-operative Urban Bank Bank Ltd. Ltd.

7. Eenadu Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. 8. Gayatri Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

9. Pochampally Co-operative Urban 10. Rajadhani Co-operative Urban Bank Bank Ltd. Ltd.

11. Sudhar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. 12. Vardhaman Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

13. Warangal Co-operative Urban Bank 14. YLNS Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Ltd.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central office, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter Page 2 of 6 dated 16.01.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 23.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.02.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 08.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the information sought was denied by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information which was required to pursue his research.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.01.2018 replied that information sought pertained to 14 Urban Cooperative Banks in respect of various information which was not readily available with them, collection of this information would divert the resources of the bank, hence, exempted under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2018 agreed with the views take by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Abhay Kumar, General Manager & CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he is a Central Government Servant working in Hyderabad and simultaneously pursing Ph.D. He stated that information sought by him was very much important as being part of his research. He also stated that being a regulatory body the RBI had access to complete data/information as sought in the RTI application. Besides, the Government had been encouraging various organizations/institutions to support the research however, the respondent had arbitrarily denied the information which was required for research purposes. He argued that the RBI had been preparing the annual report containing various data pertaining to all cooperative banks in the report for the last Page 3 of 6 20 years. Hence, they stated that the exemption claimed by the respondent under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act would not apply.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought data on 16 parameters relating to 14 urban co-banks in the State of Telangana for the period 2007-08 to 2016- 17. They stated that the then CPIO had furnished the information on one parameter i.e. number of branches of the 14 aforesaid Urban Co-operative banks. As regards to the data on remaining 15 parameters, they contended that the same was not readily available with them and collation of this information would entail involvement of resources in a disproportionate manner, hence, it could not be given to the appellant under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The respondent while denying the information relied on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. However, they admitted that the banks had been sending their consolidated data for the purpose of their annual report. They also expressed their inability to provide the information sought for the last 10 years as a collecting of this huge information would divert the resources of the bank.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the respondent have perfunctorily denied the information claiming exemption under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that information sought was relating to consolidated data on 16 parameters relating to 14 urban co-banks in the State of Telangana for the period 2007-08 to 2016- 17. This may not be out of place to mention that under section 4 of the RTI Act every public authority has to maintain all its records/information duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and the Page 4 of 6 information can be retrieved easily. Moreover the respondent failed to justify the denial of complete information under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The Commission feels that information sought was very much available with the respective co-operative bank and the RBI can procure it being a regulatory body. Moreover, the respondent have admitted that they seek various data including some of the data/information sought in the RTI application from the co-operative bank for making annual report. In view of this, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information/reply , on the basis of information obtained and available with them, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 30.06.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Department of Co-operative Bank Supervision, Central Office, C-9, Ground/ 1stFloor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Page 5 of 6 THE F.A.A RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Department of Co-operative Bank Supervision, Central Office, C-9, Ground/ 1st Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 B SUDHAKARA RAO Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission