Central Information Commission
Mr.Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 5 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002717/16122
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002717
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
1775 Kucha Lattushah , Dariba,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi - 110006.
Respondent : Mr. Udgata
Public Information Officer & CGM
Reserve Bank of India,
Urban Banks Department,
Central Office, 1st Floor,
Garment House, Worli,
Mumbai - 400018.
RTI application filed on : 13/04/2011
PIO replied : 26/05/2011
First appeal filed on : 31/05/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2011
Second Appeal received on : 22/09/2011
Information sought:- I will be obliged if your honour kindly provides me complete and detailed information an under mentioned aspects together with relted document/correspondence/file-notings etc. relating to news-report CBI raids four Engineering Colleges. Prasar Bharti Board Member
1. Is it true that CBI conducted raids at residence of Prasar Bharti Board Member Dr. Sunil Kapoor and on Engineering Colleges run by ayushmati Education & Social Society and Satya Sai Urban co-operative Bank?
2. If yes. Complete and detailed information on CBI raid at establishment/residences etc related to Dr. Sunil Kappr as also referred an enclosed news-report including also copies of all correspondence documents the notings etc relating the said raid.
3. Has Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor been removed/resigned from Prasar Bharti Board?
4. If yes, documents/correspondence/file-notings relating to removal resignation of Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor from Prasar Bharti Board including copy of approval by Honourable president of India in this regard.
5. If no. to (3) is Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor still on Prasar Bharti Board? Please also mention if Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor has attended any meeting f Prasar Bharti Board after CBI raid on his residence.
6. Was CBI raid conducted on basis of some complaint?
7. If yes. Copy of complaint.
8. Has CBI completed enquiry etc after the raid on residence of Dr. Sunil Kapoor.
9. If yes out come of the enquiry after CBI raid.
10. Has CBI submitted its report to concerned authorities including Prasar Bharti Board other concerned authority?
11. If yes, copy of the report submitted to Prasar Bharti or other concerned authority.
Page 1 of 312. In case CBI has not yet completed its enquiry after raid on Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor Please provide information on present status of the case.
13. Is it true Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor a member of Ayushmati Education & Social Society?
14. Have Union Ministry of Human Resource Development and All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) been also informed about CBI raids Engineering Colleges run by Ayushmati Education & Social Society.
15. Present status of AICTE recognition for Engineering Colleges run by Ayushmati Education & Social Society.
16. Is it true that mother of Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor is chairperson of Satya Sai Urban Co. operative Bank?
17. Is information about raid on Satya Sai Urban Co Operative Bank been given to Reserve Bank of India (RBI)?
18. Complete and detailed information on action taken by RBI against Satya Sai Urban Co operative Bank.
19. Any other related information
20. File notings on movement of this RTI petition as well.
The PIO replied
16. This information is not available with the Department.
17. What is being sought here, is information available with RBI in fiduciary relationship, and disclosure of the same would prejudicially affect the economic interest of the bank. It is exempt under Section 8(1) (e) & (g) of right to information Act, 2005.
18. RBI has imposed directions on the bank under Section 35 A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS) effective at the close of business on April 9, 2010 allowing withdrawal of deposit not exceeding Rs. 1000/- per depositor with a view to protecting the interest of the depositors and to prevent alienation of the assets of the bank.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) against the decision of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Urban Banks Department (UBD) of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on the application made by him.
It is seen that an application dated April 13, 2011 was submitted by the appellant to the CPIO of Prasar Bharti, 2nd Floor, PTI Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi calling upon him to supply certain information relating to the raids conducted at the residence of Prasar Bharti Board Member Dr. Sunil Kapoor and on engineering colleges run by Ayushmati Education & Social Society and Satya Sai Urban Co-operative Bank and some other information relating to Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor etc. The said application was forwarded by the CPIO, Prasar Sharti to CPIO, Reserve Bank of India. The application contained 20 queries, out of which query Nos. 16 to 18 relate to CPIO, UBD. The CPIO UBD vide his reply dated May 26, 2011 furnished point-wise reply on the queries of the appellant. Not being satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO, URD, and the appellant has preferred this appeal before me. A copy of the reply dated May 26, 2011 issued by the CPIO of UBD is annexed to this order for ready reference. -
In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the reply given on query Nos 16 and 17. The appellant has contended that he inadvertently mentioned the wrong name as Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor in place of Dr. Sunil Kapoor. The appellant has prayed the Appellate Authority to direct the CPIO to provide the information accordingly. The appellant has inter alia contended that the CPIQ has wrongly claimed the exemption under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (g).
I have gone through the appeal. As regards the providing the information relating to corrected name I am of the opinion that it amounts to seeking fresh information which is not permissible under the Page 2 of 3 RTI Act, 2006. In this regard, the order passed by the CIC in the case of G. Sri nivasan v. NTPC Limited (Appeal No.ICPB/A-12/CIC/2006 -- Order dated 05-04-2006) is relevant. In the said order, the CIC has observed as follows:
"At the appellate stage, an appellant cannot ask for additional information which had not been sought from the CPIO. In case the appellant seeks additional information, he may do so, through a fresh application to the CPIO. Appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits."
As regards the other grounds of appeal I am of the opinion that GPIO has rightly claimed the exemption under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005. I fully agree with the GPIO that the information collected by RBI is confidential in nature and is held by RBI in fiduciary capacity and is exempt from disclosure under clauses (e) and (g) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply received by the Appellant and FAA has passed unsatisfactory order.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal through telephone no. 9810033711; Respondent : Mr. Unni Krishnan, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Udgata, PIO & CGM on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The RTI application has been transferred with respect to query 16, 17 & 18 to RBI. The PIO has provided information on query-18 and the Appellant has approached the Commission for relief on query 16 & 17 only. As regards query-16 the PIO states that it would not be on record whether someone is a mother of the some person or not and hence this information cannot be provided. The Commission accepts this as a reasonable explanation by the PIO. As regards query-17 the PIO states that the information can be provided based on the available records.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed provide the information regarding query-17 in the affirmative or in the negative based on the records to the Appellant before 20 December 2011. 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 05 December 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA) Page 3 of 3