Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Gajendra M Nag vs Department Of Financial Services on 30 August, 2024

                                       के ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                    बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई िद   ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं         ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2023/124762

 Gajendra M Nag                                                   ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                          VERSUS
                                           बनाम
 CPIO:
 1. Department of Financial
 Services, New Delhi                                          ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
 2. Reserve Bank of India,
 New Delhi


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 13.05.2023                 FA      : 22.05.2023            SA     : 05.06.2023
 CPIO : 29.05.2023 &
                                  FAO : 24.05.2023                Hearing : 28.08.2024
 05.06.2023

Date of Decision: 30.08.2024
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Need a clarification whether this below attached paper has been issued by RBI or Government of India I need to take clarification is this a RBI or Government of India document please find attached pdf and reply me.

2. Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.05.2023. The FAA vide order dated 24.05.2023 stated as under:

"The CPIO, PMO, disposed the Application on 22.05.2023 informing you that there was no attachment with the RTI Application.

I have examined the records in the matter. On perusal of records, it is observed that you have now furnished the said attachment, regarding which information was sought. Therefore, the CPIO, PMO is requested to provide response within 25 working days from the date of issue of this letter."

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.05.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"In compliance to the First Appellate Authority decision dated 24.05.2023, with reference to the matter raised in appeal, after consideration, your RTI application dated 13.05.2023, is being transferred under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance. You are advised to approach the transferee public authority for further information in this regard."

3.1. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance forwarded the RTI application and appeal to the CPIO, Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 05.06.2023 for necessary action as appropriate.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.06.2023.

5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Kumar Shailendra, CPIO, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, RBI Legal Officer attended the hearing in Person and Ms. Deepika, RBI Manager through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he has received the written submissions of the Respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought clarification regarding the papers enclosed with the RTI application and had asked whether the same were issued by RBI or Government of India. The RTI application was transferred from PMO to Department of Financial Services (DFS) and then to RBI vide DFS letter dated 05.06.2023. The RTI application was received at RBI, New Delhi office on 06.06.2023. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO replied, vide reply dated 07.07.2023, and informed the applicant that the letters enclosed by him regarding foreign remittance/fund transfer/lottery etc. seems to be fictitious, fake and has not been sent by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Further, the applicant was also informed that RBI does not maintain any account in the name of individuals/company/companies/trusts in India to hold funds for disbursal and that it also does not open accounts for individuals or ask them to deposit money in those accounts. It was also informed that the fraudsters usually impersonate the officers of RBI/Government of India/ any other public authority and contact the victims over phone. They give mobile phone numbers and fake email ids, giving reference of fake website created to establish their credibility and lure the public. A detailed clarification along with necessary weblinks was provided to the applicant. The Commission was in receipt of the written submissions of the Respondent.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 30.08.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Department Of Financial Services, 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

2. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, 6, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

3. Gajendra M Nag Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)