Vinay Kumar Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 19 May, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinay Kumar Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India on 19 May, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 09.12.2017 and first appeal dated 14.01.2018:-

Page 1 of 5

The value of monthly transactions (in INR) done by the group of companies mentioned below for the period April 2013 to Oct 2017. This business could have been carried out by using their Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI) License or Business Correspondent (BC) relationship with different banks. With one data point for each month, it would mean a total of 55 data points. The request is not being made for company wise data but only the CUMULATIVE DATA for this group of companies. Therefore, this request is not contrary to section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act 2005 and/or section 15 of Payments and Settlement Act, 2007 and these sections would not be applicable here.

(i) Eko India Financial Service Private Limited.

(ii) Fino Paytech Ltd.

(iii) GI Technology Private Limited.

 (iv)    Idea Mobile Commerce Services Ltd.
  (v)    Itz Cash Card Ltd.
 (vi)    MMP Mobi Wallet Payment Systems Limited.
(vii)    Oxygen Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

(viii) Pay Point India Network Private Limited.

 (ix)    Spice Digital Ltd.
  (x)    Vodafone m-pesa Limited (Earlier Mobile Commerce Solutions Ltd. was
         performing this activity)
 (xi)    Airtel Money.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 05.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 20.02.2018.

Page 2 of 5

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 18.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 18.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.01.2018 replied that the information was exempted under provisions of section 7 (9) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the decision taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sudhanshu Prasad, General Manager and Abijit Kaushal, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was an economic researcher and he had requested for data relating to domestic remittances from the respondent for supporting his research work. The appellant further contended that the cumulative report prepared by the Reserve Bank of India was expected to be generated by base data and that data may be made available to him. The appellant stated that he had also requested the respondent that in case the data included the names of companies, the same may be blocked out or redacted before parting the same with him.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply submitted that the value of monthly transactions carried out by group of companies listed by the appellant in his RTI application would include collating information from 1210 units and data points. The consolidation of this massive data would exhaust resources and manpower and in such case no larger public interest warranted the disclosure. The respondent further argued that the disclosure of the information would also violate the confidentiality provisions under section 15 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Moreover, the analysis of data may be carried out by the economist appellant based on the reports and data available on their web portal.

Page 3 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply has already been given. Moreover, the Commission is not inclined to create additional burden on the public authority by directing them to create or collate data thus exempted under provisions of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. The appellant is at liberty to access the cumulative reports and data updated by the respondent on their web portal. However, the reply having been given by the respondent ,there appears to be no public interest in further burdening the public authority and prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

                                                                        सुरेश चं ा)
                                                     (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                     सूचना आयु )
                                          Information Commissioner (सू
                                                           दनांक/Date: 18.05.2020

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 PAYMENT & SETTLEMENT
SYSTEM, CENTRAL OFFICE, 14TH
FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE
BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH
MARG, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001

THE F.A.A, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
DEPTT. OF PAYMENT &
SETTLEMENT SYSTEM, CENTRAL OFFICE,
14TH FLOOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH
MARG, FORT, MUMBAI- 400 001

                                                                           Page 4 of 5
 VINAY KUMAR SINGH




                    Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission