Anand Madhav Salve vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 13 November, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anand Madhav Salve vs Idbi Bank Ltd. 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 23.09.2017 and first appeal dated 23.10.2017:-

Page 1 of 6 Page 2 of 6

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Limited, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 17.10.2017. Not having received information within the stipulated time period, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.10.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 1.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

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

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.10.2017 gave point-wise reply wherein on point nos. (1), (2), (4) & (5) stated that information was not held by them. The FAA vide his order dated 10.11.2017 directed the CPIO to send the copy of CPIO's reply once again to the appellant within 10 days.

5. The appellant and Mr. Yogendra Parikh, CPIO/AGM, IDBI Bank Limited, 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.

Page 3 of 6

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 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 Page 4 of 6 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 while defending the CPIO inter alia submitted that information sought was not available in the form it was sought by the appellant. They also stated that bifurcation of funds as per caste and community was not done for lending purpose. The respondent 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 Page 5 of 6 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) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 23.10.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO, IDBI BANK LTD.

REGD OFFICE, IDBI TOWER WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005.

THE F.A.A, IDBI BANK LTD.

REGD OFFICE, IDBI TOWER WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005.

ANAND MADHAV SALVE, Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission