Prakash Agrawal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prakash Agrawal vs Reserve Bank Of India on 29 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.09.2018 and first appeal dated 21.10.2018:-

(i) Details of total budget allocated and Utilized for various cyber frauds awareness program from 01.04.2010 to till date by RBI and all Affiliated banks (Must contain total approve budget and expenses year wise).

(ii) Copy of action taken reports by governor RBI and all concern RBI and officials, SLBC Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh including their member banks towards my Page 1 of 4 email dated 12.09.2018 basically sent to their official email IDs for correction of system errors instead Playing office-officer

(iii) Details & copy of RBI rules & regulation because of them RBI officials unable to take corrective measures for cyber crime prevention according to my various suggestions including email dated 12.09.2018 & RTIs. Also clarify the reason why RBI officials not issued any directions for affiliated banks contain instructions for instant disablement of CNP Transaction, Domestic Usage & International Usage option on their ATM/Debit Card which is Automatically Action on approx all ATM cards because auto CNP is main Culprit of ATM based cyber frauds now a days.

(iv) Name & details of the authorized designated RBI official capable to correct system errors raised by me via various communication including email dated 12.09.2018.

(v) Certified copy of action taken report by all concerns of RBI towards my online petition DEABD/E/2018/16550 about Prevention of Cyber crime in connection with my above email dated 12.09.2018 too.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.09.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.09.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.10.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.11.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 31.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 31.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO and the FAA did not seem serious based on the reply given on issues of public interest. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and impose penalty on the CPIO and FAA.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.09.2018 that the RBI did not have any information regarding budget allocation as inferred by the appellant; reply to the email was sent vide email dated 05.10.2018 and the same was again provided; query was not clear in Page 2 of 4 respect of point no. 3 of the RTI application; query seeking opinion was not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Amitabh Khandewal, Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference and Ms. Ankita Yadav, Legal Officer, Shri Hariharan and Shri Punit Kumar Jain, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. The information sought by him was specific and relating to the budget allocated and Utilized for various cyber frauds awareness program but the respondent was deliberately not disclosing the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the RBI was consistently publishing advertisements, hoardings, advising the private banks to inform the customers not to share OTPs, ATM pin codes etc. for avoiding cyber frauds. However, the details of budget allocation was not available with them.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 17.09.2018. Further, the respondent is under an obligation to only provide the information that is available in their custody and available in material form. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO and there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 28.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Department of Payments Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, FORT, Mumbai -400 001 THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, Department of Payments Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, FORT, Mumbai- 400 001 Prakash Agrawal Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission