Anand Madhav Salve vs Central Bank on 13 November, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anand Madhav Salve vs Central Bank on 13 November, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.09.2017 and first appeal dated 23.10.2017:

Page 1 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Page 2 of 6 seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 07.10.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 19.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.10.2017 expressed their inability to provide the information as the same was not readily available with the concerned department of the bank. The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant and Mr. Rajesh Akhauri, CPIO/Dy. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai (respondent) attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant submitted that he was an employee of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and was gathering data relating to loans given to the scheduled castes through state channelizing agencies in Maharashtra. He submitted that the RBI had laid down guidelines through several circulars for submission of the data and that the Head Office of each bank had an obligation to review the data relating to credits extended to the SCs/STs. He further submitted that the Corporation Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Indian Overseas Bank had already shared the information and the respondent bank should also furnish the said information. The appellant referred to the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard and explained the necessity of disclosure of the information:

(i) RBI issued circular vide DBOD No. BP.BC./C.469(86) dated 14.04.1981 on credit facility to SC/ST and the RBI had instructed to banks for not insisting on collection of deposit and disbursement of loan.

(ii) The RBI circular dated 05.11.1982 regarding grant of concessional finance to SC/ST Development Corporation was issued.

(iii) RBI circular dated 02.07.2007 was issued for special emphasis towards welfare of SC/ST and should be ensured that applicable subsidy is not held back while Page 3 of 6 releasing the loan component till full payment of bank dues. Further, advances sanctioned to state sponsored organizations of SC/ST for the specific purpose and supply of inputs to and/or the marketing outputs of the beneficiaries viz.

artisans, village and cottage industries of these organization, should be treated as priority sector advances. In 2007, it was also advised to create a special cell to monitor the flow of credit to SC/ST beneficiaries. The head office was instructed to periodical review on the basis of return and other data received from branches.

(iv) RBI/2008-09/43RPCD.NO.SP.BC.5/09.09.01/2008-09 (July 2008) stated that the National SC/ST Finance and Development Corporation has been set up under the administrative control of Ministry of Welfare. Therefore, banks should advise their branches/controlling offices to render all the necessary institutional support to enable the institution to achieve the desired objectives.

(v) The RBI circular dated 01.07.2014 states that a periodical review should be made by the Head Office of the banks of credit extended to SCs//STs on the basis of returns and other data received from the branches. The RBI circular dated 01.07.2017 was issued stating that the major gap or variation in credit flow to SC/ST on a year to year basis should be reported to the Board of the Bank for review under the themes of "financial inclusion" in terms of the circular DBR NO. BC. 93/29.67.001/2014-15 dated 14.05.2015.

(vi) As per the circular RBI/2019-20/06 FIDD.CO.GSSD.BC.No.03/09.09.01/2019-20 dated 01.07.2019 under clause 6.1. which states that the cell would be responsible for collections of relevant information/data from the branches, consolidation thereof and submission of the requisite return to RBI and Government.

5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that they had replied vide letter dated 17.10.2017 that the information was not available with them. They further stated that there were around 645 branches in Maharashtra and collection and compilation of information from all the branches would divert the resources of the bank, hence, Page 4 of 6 could not be provided under Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The respondent further requested the Commission for granting time of six months for compilation of the information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the respondent bank being an instrumentality of the state, partly discharges government functions and is expected to act in accordance with the statutory duties conferred upon them. The Reserve Bank of India has conferred upon them duties of reporting and collecting information/data from branches towards credit flow to SCs and STs even through government agencies. The respondent sought six months' time for compilation of data and the appellant has not raised any objections thereof. Moreover, the information relating to the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes must be updated by the public authorities on their respective websites as per section 4 (1) (b)

(xii) of the RTI Act read with Reserve Bank of India's mandate. In view of this, the respondent is granted time of six months and accordingly the information be compiled in accordance with law in force and made available to the appellant and submit a compliance report to this Commission at the end of six months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date:28.10.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Page 5 of 6 Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL BANK BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 023 THE F.A.A, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDERMUKHI, 17TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021.

ANAND MADHAV SALVE, Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission