Central Information Commission
Aakash Goel vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/623249
CIC/RBIND/A/2024/648968
Aakash Goel ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 623249 28.03.2024 28.04.2024 28.04.2024 31.05.2024 Nil.
2. 648968 02.09.2024 03.10.2024 03.10.2024 04.11.2024 Nil.
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 05.05.2025
Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/623249
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Page 1 of 5a) NPCI comes under RBI. NPCI has debit mandate feature (also known as NACH). Please tella. Number of debit mandate presented in each of 23 months from April 2022 to February 2024.
b) Out of the above, debit mandate presented by Just Dial in each month.
c) Number of debit mandate returned unpaid in each of 23 months from April 2022 to February 2024.
d) Out of the above, debit mandate by Just Dial which returned unpaid in each month.
e) Total levies charged/earned for debit mandate return charges in each of 23 months from April 2022 to February 2024 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Reserve Bank of India does not have any information in this regard."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/648968
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
Bank accounts inoperative for more than 10 years are classified as Dormant/Unclaimed and their balances are transferred to DEAF account with RBI as per 2014 rules.Page 2 of 5
Section 126 of Finance Act 2015 introduced provision of Escheat to Central Govt wrt Dormant/Unclaimed Money. Please tell
a) Is there a time limit till which dormant/unclaimed account holder can reclaim such money
b) Does DEAF account transfer money to Consolidated Fund of India
c) Is there escheat provision wrt DEAF account 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"What is being sought is an opinion and not "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you may refer 'The Depositor Education and Awareness Fund Scheme, 2014' enclosed with the Circular on "The Depositor Education and Awareness Fund Scheme, 2014 - Section 26A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Operational Guidelines" dated May 27, 2014, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'. You may also refer FAQs on "Depositor Education and Awareness (DEA) Fund Scheme, 2014" dated March 05, 2024, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'FAQs'."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 04.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
Hearing Proceedings:
3. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Kashyap Balakrishnan, General Manager; Sidhant, CAPIO; Uttara Srinivasan, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 54. The respondent while defending their case inter alia while endorsing the reply dated 28.04.2024 given in CIC/RBIND/A/2024/623249, relied upon their latest written submissions dated 02.05.2025, extracted below:
"It is submitted that NPCI is regulated by RBI under the provisions of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, and the information sought by the appellant in the RTI application pertaining to the number of debit mandates presented during a specific period and by a specific entity is not available with RBI. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the CPIO of RBI is not expected to collect or collate such non available information for the sake of furnishing it to the information seeker. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2011 (8) SCC 497) (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors):
"35. 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."
4.1. In CIC/RBIND/A/2024/648968, the CPIO submitted that the appellant had raised queries which were in the nature of seeking clarification, hence, were not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Additionally, they had advised the appellant to refer to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) available at their website relating to the schemes and circulars of RBI.
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act in both the Page 4 of 5 appeals. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his cases or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matters. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Reserve Bank of India, CPIO, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Central Office, 14th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 2 Aakash Goel Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)