Central Information Commission
Shri Nimesh Ramesh Patel vs Reserve Bank Of India, Department Of ... on 3 November, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000034 dated 06.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 3 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Nimesh Ramesh Patel, 142/5, Rambhuvan, 1 D Bhuva Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 400 031.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Administration & Personnel Management, Central Office, Amar Building, P.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400 001.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Unnikrishnan, Deputy General Manager was present.
The brief facts of this case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO on November 6, 2007, for a number of information in regard to the Specimen Bank Notes and misprint notes. The CPIO replied on December 27, 2007, somewhat belatedly, and provided query-wise information, against all the queries except the one listed at 1(e) about which the CPIO stated that the RBI did not maintain such information. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant moved the first Appellate Authority on January 22, 2008. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated March 12, 2008 in which he endorsed the information already provided by the CPIO while directing him to transfer the query No. 1(e) to the Note Printing Presses. Following this direction, the CPIOs of the Note Printing Press concerned provided the necessary information on this query in their respective letters dated April 3, 16 and 17, 2008. Still not satisfied, the Appellant has come before the Central Information Commission in second appeal.
3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing through videoconferencing. The Respondent was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. We heard his submissions and carefully perused the contents of the CIC/SM/A/2009/000034 appeal. We are satisfied that the CPIO had provided clear and complete information on his queries. The Appellant seems to be exercised over the fact that Specimen Notes have been found to be openly auctioned/sold in the Mumbai market. The CPIO had made it clear that such notes were not meant for circulation or use and that there was no specific legal provision under the RBI Act concerning the Specimen Notes. The Appellant was entitled to get the information he wanted; but the CPIO could not be expected to find out if the alleged auctioning or selling of Specimen Notes in the market could amount to any crime or offence in any other law in force. The first Appellate Authority had also admitted that the issues raised by the Appellant could not be brushed aside. While we cannot hold the CPIO guilty of not providing adequate information, we would surely like to draw the attention of the authorities of the RBI to this issue for taking appropriate remedial action to prevent selling or auctioning of their Specimen Notes if such notes are not meant for either circulation or numismatic purpose.
4. In respect of the delay on the part of the CPIO, the Respondent submitted that it was unintentional and was caused by the fact that the CPIO had to consult various departments within the RBI to provide the information. He further submitted that the CPIO would abide by the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and would never delay in providing the information in future. IN view of this, we do not intend to impose any penalty on this delay.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/000034