Central Information Commission
Priya Ranjan Srivastva vs Reserve Bank Of India on 8 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/130374
Priya Ranjan Srivastava ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Reserve Bank of India ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Department of Banking Supervision
Central Office, Centre 1, World
Trade Centre, Mumbai.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 03.11.2016 FA : 01.12.2016 SA : 02.05.2017
CPIO : 01.12.2016 FAO : 02.05.2017 Hearing : 23.10.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai seeking information on ten points, including, inter- alia, (i) whether the RBI has no role to play, if a bank's branches remained Page 1 of 4 unaudited for eight years or more and (ii) a copy of the correspondence with the HDFC bank regarding the contradiction in FMR report and the bank's replies.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he is not satisfied with the CPIO's reply as the information sought for has been wrongly dnied by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastava and the respondent Shri Vipul Panjeta, Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Supervision, Central Office, Mumbai attended the hearing through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the information sought vide point no. 4 of the RTI application i.e. copy of the investigation report submitted by HDFC Bank and vide point no. 5 of the RTI application i.e. details of staff side action as defined in the master circular on fraud report has been wrongly denied by the CPIO, under Section 8(1) (h) and (j) of the RTI Act, as no police investigation is pending at all. The appellant, therefore, requested that the respondent be directed to provide the aforesaid information.
5. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a point wise reply was provided to the appellant vide letter dated 01.12.2016. He stated that the investigation report sought by the appellant was submitted by a third party i.e. HDFC Bank and hence, held by it in a fiduciary capacity. Further the information sought vide point no. 5 of the RTI application relates to the personal information of third parties i.e. the staff/employees, as held by the Hon'ble Page 2 of 4 Supreme Court vide decision dated 03.10.2012 in the case of Shri Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC & others (SLP (C) no. 27734 of 2012, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that a copy of the investigation report was wrongly denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as no police investigation in the matter is pending. The Commission takes a serious note of this lapse and counsels the CPIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. The Commission, however, notes that the investigation report was submitted by a third party i.e. HDFC Bank to the respondent. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to follow the procedure for supplying the third party information as laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act by seeking the opinion of the third party concerned and thereafter take a decision regarding disclosure of information. Further, on point no. 5 of the RTI application the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the action taken, if any, against the staff of the bank, without divulging any details of the proceedings thereof, to the appellant. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 48. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 05.11.2018 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 Banking Supervision Central Office Centre 1, World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400 005
2. Shri Priya Ranjan Srivastva Page 4 of 4