Central Information Commission
Shri. K Lall vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000528/SG/14176Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000528/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. K. Lall,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
Respondent : Mr. G. Jaganmohan Rao
PIO & Chief General Manager
Reserve Bank Of India,
DBS, Central Office, Centre 1,
Cuffe Parade, Colaba,
Mumbai-005
RTI application filed on : 25 /08/2010
PIO replied : 30/09/2010
First appeal filed on : 20/10/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 11/11/2010
Second Appeal received on : 10/01/2011
Sl. Queries PIO's Reply
1 Since Canara Bank, Jeevan Bharti Branch
is not responding to the Appellant. He has
sought information with the RBI under the
Banking Regulation Act and has asked o
provide him with the following documents
withheld by Canara bank.
2 Provide me the copy of alleged request No reply.
letter dated 07-05-1996 for Temporary
Overdraft on my account no. 1769 as has
been mentioned in various correspondence
and suit no. 740/2002
3 Provide me the copy of the loan document No Reply
which has been executed in
Acknowledgement of Debt and Security
form dated 27-03-1999
4 Provide me the statutoryThe information collected during the inspection/
Audit/concurrent/Inspection reports of RBI scrutiny is confidential in nature and held by us in a
inspectors from 1996-2002 fiduciary capacity .As such the information cannot be
disclosed in terms of Section 8(1) (a) (d) and (e) of
the RTI Act.
5 Provide me the file noting ,internal notes, Since Canara Bank s a "public authority".You may
internal correspondence between officials approach it for information.
regarding aforesaid matter from 07-05-
1996 to date.
6 Provide me the copy of follows: No Reply
i)Dr./Cr. Vouchers of 1st and 6th May,1996
Page 1 of 3
ii)Copy of voucher/pay in slip dated 07-
05-1996 debiting Rs 2 lakh and crediting
the same to current no. 4190 vide check
no. 702203 dated 05-05-1996 .
iii)Copy of voucher no. LCBD-425 dated
28-09-1996
iv)Please inform when LCBD-425 was
purchased by you and credited the amount
of Rs. 1,99,651/- instantly, why again the
debit of Rs. 2,00,416/- was made to my
above account. Please inform me as to why
the recovery process was not initiated
against the drawer under NIA Act.
v)Provide the copies of pay in
slips/vouchers of Rs. 25000 and Rs .50000
credited to his account
vi)Provide the copies of voucher dated 05-
02-1998 bearing transfer of Rs. 36000/-
from his SB account no. 15507 to current
account no. 1769 along with notice and
reason for the same.
Grounds For First appeal:
The Appellant is not satisfied with the information.
The First Appellant Authority's Order:
The audits/concurrent reports sought by the Appellant are exempt from disclosure under clause (a) (d)
(e) of Section 8(1) of the Act. Also Canara Bank is a Public authority as defined by Section 2(h),the
Appellant if so desires can approach the bank directly.
Grounds For second Appeal
No action taken even after the First Appellate Authority's order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19 August 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Abhilash, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. G. Jaganmohan Rao, PIO &
Chief General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
"The PIO has not given information about the audit reports of Canara Bank claiming
exemption under Section 8(1)(a),(d) &(e). The Commission accepts the contention of the PIO that
audit reports of Canara Bank would be exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) & (e)."
Decision dated 19/08/2011:
The Appeal was disposed.
"The information sought by the Appellant is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) & (e)
of the RTI Act."
Facts leading for the hearing on 02/02/2012:
"In the above referred matter, a hearing was held on 19/08/2011 and an order was passed disposing the matter. On perusal of the papers it appears that on 19/08/2011 the Appellant marked his attendance on the Attendance Sheet, however when the matter was called for hearing, the Appellant did not appear before the Information Commissioner. Despite calling two-thee times, the Appellant did not appear before the Commissioner and only the Respondent appeared through video conference at the scheduled time i.e. 1:00PM on 19/08/2011. Consequently, an exparte order was issued on 19/08/2011. The Commission has received a letter dated 25/11/2011 from the Appellant stating that Page 2 of 3 after having marked his attendance he went to the Post Office and returned back to the waiting room after some time.
In the instant matter, there appears to have been a procedural illegality, which invalidates the proceedings itself and consequently the order passed on 19/08/2011. It is settled law that in such a case, even in the absence of an express power of review conferred upon a quasi-judicial authority, the power of procedural review may still be invoked by such authority.
Therefore the Commission has decided to give one more opportunity to both the parties to appear before the Commission. The Commission hereby directs both the parties to appear before the Commission on 02/02/2012 at 12:45PM All concerned are directed to attend the said hearing in person at the following address. They are also advised to carry with them positively the "Proof of Identity" so as to have a smooth entry into the NIC Studio. Please reach the venue half an hour before the scheduled time."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 02 February 2012:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. K. Lall;
Respondent: Mr. Mini K. Krishnan, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. G. Jaganmohan Rao, PIO & Chief General Manager on video conference from RBI-Mumbai Studio;
The Respondent states that this review by the Commission is not as per law since this would not fall in the domain of a procedural lapse. She states that in the instant case the Appellant had signed the attendance sheet and gone for some other work and therefore was not present during the hearing. In view of this the Respondent states that they have an objection to calling this a procedural lapse and reviewing the matter.
The Appellant argues that this is an equivalent to a restoration of a case when an appellant is absent in High Court. He therefore states that the Commission should in an equivalent manner restore the case since he had gone for a few minutes to the Post office. The Respondent has stated that this was a careless and irresponsible behavior action of the part of the Appellant and the Appellant objects these words. The Appellant contends that if one party had not been heard the matter should be reheard.
After hearing both the sides the Commission comes to the conclusion that an opportunity of hearing had been offered to the Appellant which he had not taken up. The Commission sees some validity in the contention of the Respondent that this review would not fall in the domain of a procedural lapse and the Commission does not have the power to review or restore the case. The Commission also believes that after an opportunity of hearing is given the matter should be decided on the basis of the material available and repeated hearings are an unnecessary and unwarranted cost on the adjudicating machinery. In view of this the Commission decides not to review this matter. The appellant has given written submissions which the Commission is taking on the record. Based on the objections by the Respondent the Commission is not reviewing the earlier decision.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner
02 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GS) Page 3 of 3