Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 April, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/RBIND/A/2020/119371
Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ितवादी/Respondent
... ितवादी
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision
Center-1,
1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai
Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 04-03-2020 FA : 09-04-2020 SA : 16-07-2020
1
CPIO : 08-04-2020 FAO : 09-06-2020 Hearing: 05
5-04-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) (CPIO)Reserve Bank of India, Colaba, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
under:Page 1 of 6 Page 2 of 6
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 08 08-04-2020 provided reply at point oint nos. 1, 2 and w.r.t point nos. 3 & 10 denied information under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, w.r.t point nos. 4, to 8 & 14, informed that information sought is not available, w.r.t point nos. 9, 9 11, 15 to 18,, reply as per record has been given, w.r.t point no. 13,, it has been informed that query is not specific". Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant appellan has filed first appeal dated 09-04-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 09-06-2020 2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to himand requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing in person.. The respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar, APIO/ DGM along with Shri Lokesh, Legal Officer attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
conferencing.
4. Both the parties submitted their written submissi submissions ons and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI Application and submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 04.03.2020 04.03.2020. He has further raised an issue w.r.t point no. 10 of RTI Application. He insisted on redressal of his grievances.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 08.04.2020, 08.04.2020 they have already provided a point-wise point wise reply to the appellant as per their available records. That they do not maintain such data of freezing accounts under PMLA Act. That if the appellant is having any grievance, he can file a complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.Page 3 of 6
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant is seeking clarifications/ interpretations of Act/ Laws based on records which are not maintainable under the provisions of the RTI Act. That the appellant vide his RTI Application has raised hypothetical questions i.e. under what Act (Law/ Rules/ Regulations) the saving bank account of any customer can be freezed? Etc. that the respondent vide their letter dated 08.04.2020 already informed the appellant that the information sought by him are more in the nature of seeking 'opinions' and cannot be considered as 'information as per the provisions of section 2 (f) of RTI Act. That the appellant is not seeking any information which exists in material form, still the respondent has informed the appellant on the Master Direction on Know Your Customer which provides for 'partial freezing' and provided its web link as well. That the appellant was also informed on the process generally followed by RBI for imposition of penalty under Section 47A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Further, the appellant was specifically informed that the RBI had not taken any enforcement action against Axis Bank on the facts alleged in his application. Apart from it, the appellant has also been explained about the procedure for filing complaint under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme along with the web link to access the scheme by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material Page 4 of 6 held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant.
The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
9. Moreover, the appellant is aggrieved with the reply provided w.r.t point no. 10 of RTI Application, in the said point, the appellant is asking about the compensation given to a customer whose account is wrongly fully and illegally freezed. In this regard, the respondent has already informed the appellant that there is no Law/ Act under which such customers can receive compensation for freezing account.
10. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that relevant reply as exist in their records has already been provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 08.04.2020. Further, if the appellant is having any grievance regarding freezing of his account, the appellant may approach the appropriate grievance redressal mechanism in public authority or any other appropriate forum as RTI is not a forum for settlement of claim.
11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 5 of 613. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 05-04-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Supervision
Center-1, World Trade Centre
Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005
2. Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
Page 6 of 6