Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 9 April, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Reserve Bank Of India on 9 April, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.12.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.11.2018 and first appeal dated 24.12.2018:-

 Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each State of this country (with or w/o Post Office Receipts - with the minimum caveats as the RBI deems fit and reasonable, based on information available)  Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each Scheduled Bank of this country for the TOP 500 collection points by bank name and branch Page 1 of 5  Provide Aggregate Demo Proceeds collected by each Cooperative Bank of this country for the top 500 collection points by bank name and branch  Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each State of this country  Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each Scheduled Bank of this country for the TOP 100 fake currency collections by bank name and branch  Provide Aggregate Fake Currency collected in the Demo Process collected by each Cooperative Bank of this country for the TOP 100 fake currency collections by bank name and branch  PIO to confirm that the data received from the banks w.r.t Demo, are also available to the RBI w.r.t. Type of Accounts in which deposits were made (savings/current) and types of current accounts (individual/ corporate/partnership or proprietorship)  PIO to confirm that the data received from the banks w.r.t Demo, are also available to the RBI w.r.t. Type of business for the depositors (Exporters/Importers - traceable by IEC Code/ Diamonds and Gems and Jewellery - traceable by license and VAT Id/Agri Products Traders etc.)  PIO to confirm if any Inspection or Audit was carried out by the RBI under the RBI/BR Act w.r.t any bank in this country (or by any other 3 rd party agency), for the activities of the said banks during the course of the Demo Process, by the RBI o If Yes, the dates of the said inspection and audit, names of banks audited and scope of audit  PIO to confirm that any penalty was imposed by the RBI w.r.t the Inspection and Audit done of the banks by the RBI (or by any other 3 rd party agency),w.r.t the activities of the Page 2 of 5 said bank during the Demo period o If Yes, the RBI to provide the names of the banks penalized, penalty amount and reasons for the penalty  PIO to confirm that the RBI has shared data with the RAW/IB/ED/CBI/CEIB/NIA/DRI/FIU etc or any other investigative /intelligence agency- w.r.t the data received by the RBI Related to Demonetization o If Yes, the PIO to confirm the name of the agency and the letter ref no and date of the letter or report sent by the RBI to the said investigative or intelligence agency  W.r.t. the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Goa, Orissa, Bengal, Assam, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the aggregate Demo Proceeds in the 1st 5 days and Day 5 to 10 (in 2 buckets), is sought - for the TOP 100 Collection Banking Points by Banks and Cooperative Banks RBI Penalties and Registration Revocations  PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on private banks in the last 9 years as under: o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty  PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on PSU banks in the last 9 years as under:

o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty  PIO to provide the list of penalties imposed on Cooperative banks in the last 9 years as under: o Name of Bank, Amount of Penalty, Press Release No., Reasons for Penalty  PIO to provide the list of Revocations of Registrations of NBFCs in the last 9 years  The Applicant has tried the search icon on the Press Release page of the RBI, and there is no search result as for example

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 27.11.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 3 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.12.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.12.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.02.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 26.12.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 26.12.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant 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 13.12.2018 that the RTI application was lengthy and advised the appellant to file fresh application within prescribed word limit of 500 words. The FAA directed the CPIO to revisit the queries and provide a suitable reply subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Aradhana Ori, Mr. Ashok Parikh, CPIO, RBI, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the corresponding complaint wherein he had raised identical queries was heard and disposed of by the Commission vide order dated 02.02.2021. Further, the appellant submitted that the Commission decided a similar case earlier vide order dated 02.02.2021, he was willing to withdraw his second appeal.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply was provided to the appellant as per the records available under their custody. Further, the Commission had disposed of complaint with identical queries vide order dated 02.02.2021.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant had filed complaint [CIC/RBIND/C/2019/600754] with identical queries and was rejected by the Page 4 of 5 Commission vide order dated 02.02.2021. Further, due reply was given vide CPIO's reply dated 08.03.2019. The appellant expressed his willingness to withdraw his appeal during the course of hearing. That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.04.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPTT.

RIA DIVISION, Central Office, 21ST Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001 THE F.A.A., RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPTT.

RIA DIVISION, Central Office, 21ST Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai - 400 001 SH.SAMIR SARDANA Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission