Salim Mohammad vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 February, 2023

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Salim Mohammad vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 February, 2023

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                             के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                          बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2021/141172

Mr. Salim Mohammad                                     ... िशकायतकता/Complainant
                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
The CPIO                                                    ... ितवादी/Respondent
O/o. The Banking Ombudsman for
Rajasthan, (Reserve Bank of India), Jaipur,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, RBI Building, 4th
Floor, Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004


Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-

 RTI : 16-08-2021            FA     : Not on record        Complaint : 29-09-2021

 CPIO : 16.09.2021           FAO : Not on record           Hearing    : 27-01-2023

                                    ORDER

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The complainant seeking information is as under:-

Page 1 of 4

2. The CPIO responded on 16.09.2021. No first appeal is placed on record. No FAO is placed on record. He has filed a complaint before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. The complainant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Jaya Kumar Nayak, AGM attended the hearing through video- conferencing.

4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.

5. The complainant submitted that information has not been provided to him by the respondent.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 16.09.2021, reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the complainant on his RTI application informing him the factual position in the matter. The reply was seen during the hearing.

Decision:

7. The Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant contested in his complaint that there is a malafide intention on the part of the respondent public authority in obstructing the information. On the other hand, the respondent contended that there was no malafide intention in obstructing the information. The respondent stated that they informed the factual Page 2 of 4 position in the matter to the complainant on his RTI application and as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

8. The Commission further observed that the complainant has filed a complaint before the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act and the Commission, at this stage, cannot direct the respondent to provide information at the stage of adjudicating the complaint. The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held that "the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable."

9. The Commission could not find any malafide intention in obstructing the information to the complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act, as factual position in the matter has been informed to the complainant within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.

Page 3 of 4

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

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 02.02.2023 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO O/o. The Banking Ombudsman for Rajasthan, (Reserve Bank of India), Jaipur, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, RBI Building, 4th Floor, Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302004

2. Mr. Salim Mohammad Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission