Mahendra Kumar Mehta vs Reserve Bank Of India on 4 February, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mahendra Kumar Mehta vs Reserve Bank Of India on 4 February, 2019

Bench: Suresh Chandra

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



ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/312046


Mahendra Kumar Mehta                                       ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम


CPIO, Reserve Bank of India,                            ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Mumbai.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 08.07.2016           FA        : 08.08.2016        SA   : 08.10.2016
CPIO : 02.08.2016
                           FAO : 25.08.2016              Hearing: 01.02.2019
       04.08.2016


                                     ORDER

1. The issues under consideration arising out of second appeal dated 08.10.2016 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 08.07.2016 and first appeal dated 08.08.2016:

Page 1 of 4

(i) Reserve Bank of India(hereniafter called 'RBI') is the nodal agency for clearance of cheques; which is the clearing house responsible for in cities where RBI does not have a branch ;

(ii) CTS (cheque truncation system) was introduced on 01.08.2014;for what period MICR (magnetic ink character recognition) was implemented before CTS ;

(iii) which technology was used for cheque clearance before MICR system and for what period that technology was implemented;

(iv) whether the cheque is stored by the bank where cheque is despoited or by the bank of the beneficiary account holder;

(v) whether HDFC Bank, Axis Bank and Yes Bank follow the administration manual of RBI or these banks have independent administration rules;

(vi) dates on which the cheques deposited in HDFC Bank, Axis Bank and Yes Bank in favour of Bank of India got cleared within the period 2008 to 2013;

(vii) whether information related to HDFC Bank, Axis Bank and Yes Bank can be obtained through RBI;

(viii) name and address of the authority which is responsible for cheque clearance in Jodhpur;

(ix) what kind of information is maintained by RBI in relation to the cheque clearing between the period 2003 to 2008;

(x) name and address of the First Appellate Authority;

Page 2 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 08.07.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. The CPIO replied to the appellant vide letters dated 02.08.2016 and 04.08.2016. Aggrieved by the unsatisfactory response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.08.2016. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed an order dated 25.08.2016. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 08.10.2016 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 08.10.2016 inter alia on the grounds that no information has been given by the CPIO as well as by the FAA. In this appeal, the appellant has requested the Commission to take necessary action to facilitate furnishing of the information.

4. The CPIO replied on 02.08.2016 that the Reserve Bank of India implemented Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers Clearing Houses on 17 th May, 2012. The CPIO provided para-wise reply to queries raised in the RTI application. In addition, the CPIO vide letter dated 04.08.2016 stated that the RBI is not the nodal agency for implementation of the RTI Act and that the private banks are outside the purview of RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 25.08.2016 held that the CPIO has provided due information within the time limit prescribed under RTI Act and no further action was called for in the matter.

5.1. The appellant was absent. The respondent Mr. Sishir Kumar, Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through videoconferencing.

Page 3 of 4

5.2. The respondent stated that information sought is general and they have uploaded the information on their website and the same is updated from time to time. The respondents further submitted that they have given point-wise information to the appellant vide letters dated 02.08.2016 and 04.08.2016 which remained unrebutted.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case including the non-appearance of the appellant, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that complete information has been provided to the appellant. In view of the above, Commission's intervention is not warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Suresh Chandra) Central Information Commissioner Date:04.02.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission