Central Information Commission
M G Srikantha vs Reserve Bank Of India on 18 October, 2018
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/2017/150292
M G Srikantha ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Department of Payment and Settlement
Systems, Central Office, Central Office
Building, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 01.02.2017 FA : 29.03.2017 Complaint : 13.07.2017
CPIO : 07.03.2017 FAO : 22.05.2017 Hearing : 16.10.2018
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, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Central Office, Page 1 of 4 Central Office Building, Mumbai seeking information on six points, including, inter-alia, (i) whether any additional guidelines have been issued subsequent to the circular no. RBI/2010-11/213, DPSS.CO.CHD. No. 654/03.01.03/2010-2011 dated 24.09.2010 and (ii) a copy of the guidelines issued to the Panels for Resolution of Disputes (PRD) regarding the procedure to be followed while deciding the matters of alleged collection of fake cheques under Cheque Truncation System (CTS).
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application the CPIO has not provided the information sought for and the CPIO has provided incorrect information on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and to impose a penalty upon the officials concerned for deliberate refusal of information.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri M.G. Srikantha and the respondent Shri Shishir Kumar, Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Central Office, Central Office Building, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The complainant submitted that the CPIO has not provided the information sought vide point no. 2 of the RTI application i.e. specific guidelines issued to PRD to be followed while deciding a case regarding alleged collection of a fake cheque under CTS. Further, in response to point no. 3 of the RTI application the CPIO informed him that the Inspection Department, RBI is tasked with the mandate of providing an independent and objective feedback on the working of the Page 2 of 4 offices of RBI. However, on point no. 4 of the RTI application the CPIO stated that they do not have any information regarding any instance of contradictory decisions by various PRD on identical issues. Hence, the information furnished on point no. 4 contradicts the reply furnished on point no.3 of the RTI application.
5. The respondent submitted that on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI application the CPIO provided the relevant weblink to the complainant wherein the general procedures pertaining to the constitution and jurisdiction of PRD, regarding admission of eligible cases and time limit for filing disputes etc. are available. However, no specific guidelines have been issued by RBI for specific cases as sought by the complainant vide point no. 2 of the RTI application. On point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application the respondent stated that the Inspection Department provides the feedback on the working of the offices of RBI as to whether the general procedures prescribed for deciding the matters are being followed by the PRD. However, the Inspection Department does not analyse the decisions made in the matter before PRD and hence no records of the same is maintained. The complainant was accordingly informed on point no. 4 of the RTI application that they do not have information regarding any instance of contradictory decisions by various PRD.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the complainant by the respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
Page 3 of 47. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 17.10.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Department of Payment & Settlement Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400001
2. Shri M. G. Srikantha Page 4 of 4