Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 November, 2021

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 26.12.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 04.10.2019 are as under:-

(i) Impose maximum Penalty, on the PIO under Section 19 (8) (c), of the RTI Act,2005;

(ii) Dismissal of the PIO on account of illegal, deliberate, mala fide and baseless;

(iii) Administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO (under Section 20(2), of the RTI Act,2005;

(iv) Recommendation to the Ministry of Finance for administrative action and/strictures, against the PIO;

Page 1 of 24

(v) Impose Maximum penalty, on the PIO under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act;

(vi) Invoke its powers under the RTI Act to issue any other direction or recommendation as it may deem appropriate;

(vii) Direct the public authority to make entry in Service Book/Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the Respondents for defying the provisions of the Act;

(viii) Compensate the complainant for pecuniary and other loss.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 04.10.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking following information:

"6.1. The Following information is sought from the PIO by the RTI Applicant (w.r.t. the context in Para 2 above) TYPE A - Aggregate Value of Frauds (for all frauds in the aggregate) for Type of Banks • PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by banks in the last 10 years, as under:

o Type of Banks - Govt. owned banks, Privately owned banks and Foreign owned banks o Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type of bank Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is AGGREGATE DATA and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It DOES NOT even ask for the Bank names.

Note - In case the RBI-PIO does not have the data for the TYPES OF BANKS as above said - the PIO can provide the data w.r.t. the TYPES classification, as is available, suitably amplifying the variant TYPE. Note - In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy.

Page 2 of 24

TYPE B - Aggregate Value of Frauds for each bank:

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by EACH bank in the last 7 years, as under:

      o     Name of Bank
      o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each bank

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It merely asks for Bank names.

Note - In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy.

TYPE C - Aggregate Value of Frauds of each type for types of bank (in the aggregate) • PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by banks, w.r.t. Credit Facilities, in the last 10 years, as under:

      o     Type of Banks - Govt. owned banks, Privately owned banks and Foreign
      owned banks
      o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy. Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It DOES NOT even ask for the Bank names..

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by banks, w.r.t. FX Facilities and activities, in the last 10 years, as under:

      o      Type of Banks - Govt. owned banks, Privately owned banks and Foreign
      owned banks
      o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type


                                                                                Page 3 of 24

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It DOES NOT even ask for the Bank names.

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by banks, w.r.t. Counterfeit Currency - Indian and FX ,in the last 10 years, as under:

      o      Type of Banks - Govt. owned banks, Privately owned banks and Foreign
      owned banks
      o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It does not even ask for the Bank names..

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by banks, w.r.t. Demonetization, in the last 10 years, as under:

      o     Type of Banks - Govt. owned banks, Privately owned banks and Foreign
      owned banks
      o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. it does not even ask for the Bank names.

TYPE D - Aggregate Value of Frauds of each type for specific banks (in the aggregate) • PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by SBI,PNB,BOB,BOI,OBC and EACH Private Sector and Foreign Banks, w.r.t. Credit Facilities, in the last 5 years, as under:

      o     Name of Bank (for each bank separately)
      o      Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy.

Page 4 of 24

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. it does not even ask for the Bank names.

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by SBI,PNB,BOB,BOI,OBC and each Private Sector and Foreign Banks, w.r.t. FX Facilities and activities, in the last 5 years, as under:

       o      Name of Bank (for each bank separately)
       o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. It does not even ask for the Bank names.

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by SBI,PNB,BOB,BOI,OBC and each Private Sector and Foreign Banks, w.r.t. Counterfeit Currency - Indian and FX, in the last 5 years, as under:

       o     Name of Bank (for each bank separately)
       o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. it does not even ask for the Bank names.

• PIO to provide the aggregate value of frauds reported by SBI,PNB,BOB,BOI,OBC and EACH Private Sector and Foreign Banks, w.r.t. Demonetization, in the last 5 years, as under:

       o     Name of Bank (for each bank separately)
       o     Aggregate value of bank fraud for each type

Note - the above said information is not exempted under the RBI Act as it is aggregate data and hence, does not violate any banking secrecy or other laws. it does not even ask for the Bank names TYPE E - Names of Borrowers/bank customers identified for fraud Page 5 of 24 • RBI-PIO to provide the names of all borrowers/bank customers reported by the banks to the RBI for fraud (of any type),in the last 7 years in excess of Rs.50 crores ( Rs 50 crores to be considered at the time of each reportage or for aggregate reportage by a bank - as the RBI feels adequate w.r.t data availability). In case PIO feels with justification that the said data will divert the resources of the RBI, it can provide the above said data for a duration and value cut off that it has prepared in the past.

In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy. • RBI-PIO to provide the names of all borrowers/bank customers reported by the SBI,PNB,BOB BOI, OBC and EACH Private Sector and Foreign Banks, to the RBI for fraud (of any type),in the last 7 years in excess of Rs.50 crores. In case PIO feels with justification that the said data will divert the resources of the RBI, it can provide the above said data for duration and value cut off that it has prepared in the past.

In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI -as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy.

TYPE F - Names and Coordinates of Borrowers/bank customers identified for fraud • .RBI-PIO to provide the names, addresses and value of fraud of all borrowers/bank customers reported by the banks to the RBI for fraud (of any type),in the last 7 years in excess of Rs.50 crores In case PIO feels with justification that the said data will divert the resources of the RBI, it can provide the above said data for duration and value cut off that it has prepared in the past.

In case the PIO does not compile the data as such, the PIO can provide the annual or quarterly submissions of fraud made by banks to RBI - as such - and the Applicant shall pay the requisite fees for the same per page or for the e-copy.

Page 6 of 24

• RBI-PIO to provide the names, addresses and value of fraud of all borrowers/bank customers reported by the SBI,PNB,BOB,BOI,OBC and EACH Private Sector and Foreign Banks, to the RBI for fraud (of any type),in the last 7 years in excess of Rs.50 crores.

In case PIO feels with justification that the said data will divert the resources of the RBI, it can provide the above said data for a duration and value cut off that it has prepared in the past.

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.12.2019 replied to the complainant. Dissatisfied with that, the complainant filed first appeal dated 13.12.2019 The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by the First Appellate Authority order, the complainant filed a complaint dated 26.12.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 26.12.2019 inter alia on the grounds that that several RBI circulars required bank branches to exercise caution and diligence w.r.t. deposits and vulnerable and suspicious accounts; that the respondent was not exempted from standards of oversight, transparency and accountability; that the omission on the part of the respondent was deliberate and with mala fide; that the banks were under an obligation to disclose information pertaining to frauds as illegality and mala fide was attributable to frauds; that the information was of paramount public interest. The complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.12.2019 which is reproduced as under:

A. "We do not collect suit filed/non-suit filed data from Credit Information Bureaus (CIBs).

Page 7 of 24

The list of suit filed defaulters (Rs. 1 crore and above) and the list of suit filed willful defaulters (Rs 25 lakh and above) are available in public domain on the websites of the Credit Information companies. B. Sector-wise data on frauds is not available with us. A consolidated state-wise data on frauds reported by Scheduled Commercial Banks and select FIs between FY 2009-10 to FY 2018-19 is enclosed at annex -1.

The requested data is available in DBIE website (RBI's Data Warehouse).

   The          path   to      access       the      report       are        home
   (https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=home)      ->Statistics->Financial

Sector->Banking-Performance Indicators->Major Banking Indicators from Supervisory Returns Bank Group-wise (For public access). Sector-wise and Geography-wise data on NPA are not maintained by us. However, bank-wise and bank group-wise data on NPA of scheduled commercial banks are available on the Reserve Bank of India website at the following link- From 2005 to 2008 (annual):

http://dbie.rbi.org.in ->Time-Series Publications ->Statistical Tables Relating to Banks in India -> Tables based on Annual Accounts -> Table no.6 titles 'Movement of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) of scheduled Commercial Banks.

Consolidation of the data for March 2019 are in process and not yet finalized.

Under the CRILC data base, banks report certain credit information of all borrowers who are having aggregate fund-based and non-fund based exposure of Rs. 5 Crore and above. As a part of CRILC, form Feb 2019, the banks have an option of flag whether a borrower is willful defaulter or not. The information on the industry-wise list of borrowers flagged as willful default by the reporting entities in CRILC as on Mar 31, 2019, is provided in the Annex 2. The list includes those borrowers who have been flagged as willful default and reported in CRILC by any bank.

Page 8 of 24

2. RBI will not be held responsible or accountable for any misreporting and/ or incorrect reporting by the reporting entities.

The data prior to Feb 2019 is not available.

C. Aggregated NPAs The requested data is available in DBIE website (RBI's Data Warehouse).

  The       path       to      access      the       report        are        home
  (https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=home)        ->Statistics->Financial

Sector->Banking-Performance Indicators->Major Banking Indicators from Supervisory Returns Bank Group-wise (For public access). Willful Defaulters Under the CRILC database, banks report certain credit information of all borrowers who are having aggregate fund-based and non-fund based exposure of Rs. 5 Crore and above. As a part of CRILC, from Feb 2019, the banks have an option to flag whether a borrower is wilful defaulter or not. The information of number of borrowers flagged as Wilful Default by reporting entities in CRILC as on June 30, 2019, is provided in the Annex-3

2. RBI will not be held responsible or accountable for any misreporting and/or incorrect reporting by the reporting entities. The data as on Oct 01,2019 is not available.

Frauds The consolidated bank-wise data on frauds reported by Scheduled Commercial Banks and Select FIs as given in Annex 4.

D. Aggregate NPAs As per the data submitted by NBFC-NDSI (Non-Deposit systemically important) and NBFC-Deposit taking, the aggregate Gross NPA(GNPA) pertaining to them for the quarter ended September 30, 2019 stands at Rs.- 1,34,738 Crores.

Aggregate willful Defaulters Requisite information is not available with us.

Page 9 of 24

Aggregate Frauds Consolidate Data on frauds reported by NBFCs during FY 2017-18 to 2018-19 is provided.

Consolidated data on frauds reported by Urban Co-operative Banks from FY 2014-15 to FY 2018-19 is provided.

5. The complainant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Abhay Kumar, General Manager and CPIO, Shri Sudeep Mallick, CPIO(Department of Currency) and Ms. Gokula Nitika, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that the respondent had rejected the information on the ground that the same was not specific and definite. The respondent had not provided specific reasons or rationale while refusing the information. The information had been sought through e-format or could be accessed in a few minutes on a CD and it would not divert resources. The data relating to NPA was collated and submitted to Ministry of Finance in various formats and frequencies, therefore, it was not cumbersome as claimed by the respondent. The complainant argued that the in respect of CIBIL data, the aggregate amount due by a borrower to a bank or all banks was also not available as the entire database was based on FMR filings and that the database was for the purpose of maintaining details of location, state, etc. however, the database was not being utilized. The complainant further contended that the information was sought in the interest of transparency, accountability and larger public interest. Therefore, he requested that his complaint may be allowed in terms of prayer. Moreover, his complaint may be converted and considered as second appeal and the relief for providing the information may be granted. The complainant further stated that he had also filed a first appeal before filing a complaint before the Commission and as per the guidelines available in the web portal of the CIC, the Commission may pass direction to the CPIO to provide the information while hearing a complaint in case first appeal was also filed by the complainant.

Page 10 of 24

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that cumulative data for sector-wise data relating to filed/non-suit filed data, frauds, consolidated state- wise frauds, industry-wise list of borrowers, aggregate NPAs, consolidated data on frauds, etc. was made available to the complainant. The respondent further argued that the data which was not available or maintained by them could not be provided to him. Moreover, the data which was already available in the public domain could not be said to be under their custody.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent replied to the RTI application dated 04.10.2019 on 13.12.2019. Before dwelling upon the complaint some of the relevant cases may be discussed.

6.1. In Mr. K.S. Vasudevan vs Ministry of Law and Justice [CIC/SS/A/2011/000828], the appellant filed RTI application dated 04.09.2010 seeking the following information:

"1(a) Whether it is mandatory and compulsory to continue the proceedings initiated by the Department when the criminal case is pending before any court of law against those officers;

1(b) Whether the judgments cited are binding on the Department or not; 2(i) If yes, then whether instructions have been issued by the Law Ministry to other Departments for keeping such cases in abeyance or not; and 2(ii) If not please cite the rules under which the Departmental proceedings can be conducted over-riding the above judgments."

The Commission while disposing of the second appeal vide its decision dated 09.09.2011 made the following observations:

"4. After hearing the respondent and on perusal of relevant documents, the Commission observes that the appellant sought legal opinion from respondent; the same is not covered within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as laid down in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of respondent."

6.2. In Sarojini Devi vs Life Insurance Corporation of India [CIC/LICOI/A/2017/1769933-BJ], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2017 seeking information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice Page 11 of 24 of LIC in view of the Supreme Court Judgment which had held in 2014 that no Government Department/ Government Corporation will apply Public Premises Act (PP Act) to protected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under trial by LIC Estate Officer under PP Act which had been discharged/cancelled by LIC and premises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme Court Judgment, etc. The Commission vide its decision dated 05.04.2019 while disposing of the second appeal and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (decided on January 4, 2010) made the following observations.

6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"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 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."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."

7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."

The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter."

Page 12 of 24

6.3. In Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao vs. CPIO, Andhra Bank [CIC/SG/A/2012/001449], the RTI appellant filed an application dated 04.11.2011 seeking the following information:

"1.Does it not expedient for the bank authorities concerned to verify and ensure that everything is in the points after the customer leaves the locker room?

2. In the period 1-10-11 to 28-10-2011 no efforts to have been evinced to notice the fact of tempering of the locker. Can the reasons for this lapse on the part of the concerned authorities be permissible as per bank's statutory rules?

3. Does it not require causing an immaculate intensive check of all the locking devices and ensuring safety in a foolproof manner by the Banking officials concerned just before they leave precincts of the Bank each day?

4. Are there any specific rules allowing the bank authorities to engage an unauthorized mechanic for the purpose?

5. Had there been strict surveillance of the bank officials concern throughout the operation or this repaired word?

6. Are there any rules under Bank's Statute to allow a private person in the locker room without the surveillance of the bank officials?"

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide its decision dated 27.06.2012:

"The Appeal is partially allowed. The PIO is directed to provide an attested copy of the Manual/Rules as directed above to the Appellant before 15 July 2012."

6.4. In Shri Fasih Akhtar vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office [CIC/CC/A/2015/002259], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2014 seeking information on four points:

"(i) date of receipt of letter which was sent to the Prime Minister's Office;

(ii) what action has been taken by the PMO on his representation dt. 8-9-2014 relating to prohibition of cow slaughtering;

Page 13 of 24

(iii) what is the reason why the Prime Minister did not convey congratulations on the occasion of Eid Day to the Muslim community; and

(iv) it is against the Constitutional Rights that on the occasion of Hindu festivals Prime Minister conveys congratulations but on the festive occasion of Muslim he does not."

The Commission while disposing of the appeal while disposing of the appeal vide its decision dated 30.08.2016 held:

"The Commission's intervention is not required in the matter. The appeal is disposed of"

6.5. In Govind Mittal vs. CPIO, National Highway Authority of India, Faridabad [CIC/SS/A/2012/003439] the appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.07.2010 seeking information on 3 points:

"(1) provide information that on how much distance should heconstruct the boundary of his HouseKothi No: 69 which is situated at Gandhi Nagar, Agra, U.P near to Highway no: 2 because at present he permission to construct boundary of his house at 82 feet away from the main Road of the Highway no. 2 from NHAI.

(2) At what rate compensation will be given for the acquired land by the NHAI?

(3) Provide information on what distance should he construct the main building of his House?"

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 29.08.2013:

"The Commission observes that the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application are more in the nature of seeking advice and clarification whereas under

the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 only information as is held by the Respondent in material form can be provided. The Respondent are not expected to create information or to give advise. The information sought by the Appellant therefore does not qualify as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Page 14 of 24

6.6. In Kothandaraman Venkataraman vs. CPIO, Bank of India [CIC/BKOIN/A/2017/166537], the appellant filed RTI application dated 17.07.2017 seeking the following information:

(i) "Confirmation from telephone service provider for messages delivered from this ATM-TCE9038/ triggered by this ATM for my attempted withdrawal transaction no.

348748 on 8.9.16 and any other sms sent to my phone by your service provider for this transaction the same day.

(ii) name of telephone service provider for cross verification print out.

(iii) Appellant want the calibrated maximum delivery in Rupees machine-TCE9038 can deliver per withdrawal transaction, this when was last calibrated before 8.9.16 date and value. It can be 15000 or 10000 only.

(iv) inspecting this record wherever it is recorded / registered must be in Chennai."

The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following decision dated 09.04.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that there is no danger to life of any individual as claimed by the respondent under section 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act in providing information. The information may be supplied within 15 days from the date of issue of this order."

6.7. In Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury vs. CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank [CIC/PASBK/A/2019/123506], the appellant filed RTI application seeking the following information:

 "Kindly provide the following information with respect to administrative control of Zonal Office, Bareilly:

(i) Number of employees, cadre wise& year-wise, who have been placed under Suspension, since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

(ii) Total remuneration, cadre-wise & year-wise, paid to suspended employees since 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

(iii) Certified copies of the rules relied by the bank for review of suspension between 01.01.2013 to date of providing information.

Page 15 of 24

(iv) Name & designation of officials who were members of the Review Committee for Suspension during the period 01.01.2013 to date of providing information." The Commission while disposing of the appeal passed the following directions vide order dated 20.09.2021:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was incomplete and requisite information in response to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application had not been provided so far. The stipulated time for transferring the RTI application to the concerned Branch having elapsed, it was the responsibility of the respondent to obtain the same and provide it to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that information in respect to point nos. (iii) and (iv) of the RTI application be made available to the appellant along with uploading the same under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act on their web portal within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of."

6.8. Definition of Information under RTI Act, 2005 "Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines 'Information' as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, email, opinion, contract report logbooks, samples, models 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".

Further, Section 2 (i) defines the term "record" which includes:

a) document, manuscript and file

b) microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document

c) reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and

d) other material produced by a computer or any other device RTI Act provides that only such information is required to be supplied under the Act, which already exists in material form and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. According to the Act, the public information officer is Page 16 of 24 not to generate or interpret information, nor is he or she to solve problems raised by applicants or to respond to hypothetical questions.

Further, the term "held by or under the control of public authority" in section 2(j) of RTI Act has to be reads in a manner that it effectuates and is harmony with the term "information" as defined in section 2(f).

6.8.1 The definition of "right to information" as given under section 2(j) in the RTI Act is reproduced as under:

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a)....

(j) "right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to--

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of material;

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;"

6.8.2 In Institute of chartered accountant of India V. Shahunak H. Satya and ors., [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7571 of 2011] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:

"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make distinction regarding information intended to bring transparency to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities Page 17 of 24 and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources."

6.8.3 In Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [2011 (8) SCALE 645] the Supreme Court laid down the following observations:

"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.

.

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of 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......."

6.8.4 In Khanapuram Gandaiah V Administrative Officer & Ors. [S.L.P. (Civil) 34868 of 2009], the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 laid down the following observations:

"This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such Page 18 of 24 opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. A judge speaks through his judgments or orders passed by him. If any party feels aggrieved by the order/judgment passed by a judge, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal or by revision or any other legally permissible mode. No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion. A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion."

6.8.5 In case of A.K. Vasudev V. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi, it was held that respondent is seeking answers to his questions, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission refers to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto V. Goa State Information Commission (W.P. No. 419 of 2007, decision dated 03.04.2008) wherein it was held as follows: "The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question "why" which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justification are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

6.8.6 Right to information only to citizen of India The Right to Information Act gives right to information only to citizen of India. It does not make provision for giving information to companies, associations, corporations etc. However, if an application is made by an employee of any corporation, association, company, NGO indicating his name and such employee/officer bearer is a citizen of India then in that case it would presume that a citizen has sought information and the information may be supplied to him/her.

Page 19 of 24

6.8.7 Information relating to any private body The objective is to make public authority liable to make the information under their custody accessible to the citizens and such obligation is not on the private bodies. However, in case the information which as a mandatory filing or otherwise is available with the public authorities being public record subject to exemptions is accessible under RTI. Information relating to any private body although cannot be obtained directly but can be obtained through a public authority if law allows public authority to access it through mandatory filing or inspection etc. and thus become custodian.

6.8.8 In case of Poorna Prajna High School V. Central Information Commission it was held that it is mandatory for public authorities to disseminate information that is accessible to them. As a result, information that a public body has access to is deemed information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Here public authority is referred to as the framework or the body under which the institution is governed.

6.8.9 In case of Reserve Bank of India V. Jayantilal Mistry the Court briefly analysed section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information to include "... information relating to any private body which can accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." Using this inclusive definition, the Court held that, even if a fiduciary relationship existed between the RBI and other banks, section 2(f) would render them accessible to the public."

6.8.10 As per the RTI rules 2012, an application under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words, excluding containing address of the Central Public Information Officer and that of the applicant. However, the RTI application filed by the complainant was having around 1800 words.

6.8.11 Perusal of the RTI application against which the complainant has filed complaint reveals that he has sought details of Willful Defaulters, NPA Analytics, Loss, doubtful or written off loans, Financial supply chain of banks, CRD/OTS, NPA Page 20 of 24 Turnaround, Adhoc limits, FX, Gifts, donations/DEA Fund and Commissions, Demo/GST, Limitation and NPA Sales, Unclaimed Deposits and Lockers and EB. Perusal further reveals that in most of the cases he has not sought any material or copy of the order instead he has sought confirmation, analytics, details of processes etc. Thus he has not sought records or documents which were in the custody of the public authority.

6.9 The position when a complaint is filed by the complainant and the same is registered under Section 18 of the RTI Act may be discussed in the first instance.

6.9.1 During hearing the complainant raised the issue of converting complaint into appeal and prayed for the information in terms of the guidelines available on the CIC portal. Succinctly, the facts of the case on the subject are that earlier the field was occupied by an order dated 21st September, 2017, the relevant para 1 of the order is re- produced as under:

"In a case of complaint(s) where the applicant seeks information and also requests for imposition of penalty on the CPIO, the complaint should be registered as Second Appeal, in case First Appeal was also filed by the applicant, as both reliefs sought by the applicant can be made available under Section 19".

6.9.2 Subsequently, the order was amended vide order dated 14th June,2018. The relevant portion of the order under the head Registration of Complaint is re-produced as under:

"During scrutiny of Complaint, if it is found that the Complainant has requested for the information along with the imposition of the penalty, the Complaint should be registered as Second Appeal, provided first appeal had been filed by the Complainant. However, if the first appeal has not been filed, the person concerned may be asked to file first appeal before filing second appeal."

6.9.3 The matter was discussed during the meeting held on 22nd May,2019 including the order of the CIC dated 14th June,2019. It was unanimously decided that the same would be withdrawn. The order dated 27th May,2019 withdrawing the order dated 14th June,2018 holds the field for the present.

Page 21 of 24

6.9.4 It may be noted that while considering the issue as to whether the relief under section 19 of the Act maybe granted under section 18 of the RTI Act or not, the Commission in Sanjay Ramesh Shirodkar vs. Mumbai International Airport Ltd.[CIC/MA/C/2008/000195] passed the following observations vide its order dated 18.05.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant had not filed second appeal aggrieved by non receipt of information/reply in response to his RTI application and first appeal before approaching this commission by way of complaint. Prima facie, it may not be unreasonable for MIAL to consider itself not covered within the meaning of public authority under the RTI Act. Keeping in view of the above facts, it might not be proper for this Commission, on a complaint, where the relief sought had been punishment for not maintaining a list of CPIOs to punish without holding MIAL a 'public authority' or to treat complaint as second appeal. The ideal situation should have been that the complainant had exhausted available remedies i.e. First Appeal and/or Second Appeal. Having been not declared as 'public authority', MIAL might not be under an obligation to disclose the information requested for by the complainant nor maintain a list of CPIOs as mandated by the RTI Act.

6.9.5 The Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another Vs State of Manipur and Another [(2011) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1] has held :-

"The only order which can be passed by the Information Commissioner under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide. The Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.

Page 22 of 24

The appellant after having applied for information under Section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the information is provided under Section 19 of the Act."

6.10 The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the complainant has filed complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. He filed the complaint without exhausting the remedy of filing second appeal. In view of the factual as well as legal discussions made above, the Commission does not find any substance in the complaint. Hence the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 01.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DEPTT. OF BANKING SUPERVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, 1, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, Reserve Bank of India, DEPTT. OF BANKING SUPERVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, 1, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400005 Page 23 of 24 SAMIR SARDANA Page 24 of 24

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission