Central Information Commission
Santosh Ramji Pandey vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 April, 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/2024/140267 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140373 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2024/137183 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2024/117301
Santosh Ramji Pandey ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
New Delhi
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. 140267 16.09.2024 27.09.2024 08.10.2024 Not on 08.12.2024
record
2. 140373 12.09.2024 26.09.2024 05.10.2024 Not on 05.12.2024
record
3. 137183 27.08.2024 05.09.2024 12.09.2024 Not on 04.10.2024
record
4. 117301 05.03.2024 04.04.2024 10.04.2024 Not on 26.05.2024
record
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 30.04.2025
Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
Page 1 of 18
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140267
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. कैश े िडट खाता मांक ******2172 को 23.12.2020 से 18.09.2024 के बीच िकतनी बार नवीनीकरण (रे नेवल) िकया गया।
2. कैश े िडट खाता मांक ******2172 का नवीनीकरण िकन िकन िदनांकों को आ यह सूचना उपल कराय।
3. कैश े िडट खाता मांक ******2172 को िदनांक 23.12.2020 से िदनां क 18.09.2024 के बीच िकतनी बार र ू िकया गया। और िकस िदनांक से िकस िदनां क के बीच र ू िकया गया।
4. जी.ई.सी.एल. ऋण खाताा मांक ******0025 (******0025) का ेक महीने का ई.एम.आई. िदनांक उपल कराय।
5. जी.ई.सी.एल. ऋण खाता मांक *******0025 का िजस से ई.एम.आई. चालू आ उस िदन से िजस खाता बंद आ िकतना अितदे य धनरािश (ओवर ू) पंजाब नेशनल बक म डे िबट िकया यह सूचना उपल कराय। ..., etc./ other related information 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 27.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"इस संबंध म हमने कोई िविश िनदश जारी नहीं िकए है ।
तथािप, यह सूिचत िकया जाता है िक े िडट से संबंिधत मु े ादातर अिविनयिमत ह। भारतीय रजव बक ने बकों को सूिचत िकया है िक वे िनवेश नीित, ऋण नीित, ऋण वसूली Page 2 of 18 नीित आिद के द ावेज तैयार कर और उनके िनदे शक मंडल ारा िविधवत जांच कर। बकों को बोड ारा अनुमोिदत नीितयों और ापक िविनयामक िदशािनदशों के साथ-साथ वैधािनक ावधानों के आधार पर ऋण संबंधी िनणय लेने की आव कता होती है। आगे यह भी सूिचत िकया जाता है िक ऋण उधारकता और ऋणदाता के बीच ऋण समझौते के िनयमों और शत के अधीन है।
आप कृपया िन िल खत का संदभ ले:
1) 01 जुलाई 2015 को जारी 'मा र प रप ऋण और अि म - सांिविधक और अ ितबंध, जो www.rbi.org.in पर अिधसूचनाएं िलंक पर उपल है।
2) उपरो मा र प रप का 'ऋणदाताओं के िलए उिचत वहार संिहता संबंधी िदशा िनदश' पर पैरा 2.5"
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.12.2024. Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140373
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. भारतीय रजव बक का वह गाइडलाइ नोिटिफकेशन या आदे श प हम उपल कराय िजसम यह िलखा है िक खाता मांक ******2172 को नवीनीकरण (रे नेवल) के िलये खड़काली शाखा ठाणे महारा के शाखा बंधक को 10 (दस) महीना पहले सारे आव क डा ूमट खड़काली शाखा के शाखा बंधक को दे ना रहे गा। िवशेष इस आवेदन प के साथ िदनांक 02.06.2023 का रे नेवल सशन लेटर संल है कृपया ज र पढ़।Page 3 of 18
2. खाता मांक *******2172 का सशन िलिमट की धनरािश 2019 म िकतनी थी।
3. खाता मांक *******2172 की वष 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 और 2024 म सशन िलिमट की धनरािश िकतनी थी।
4. खाता मांक ******2172 का सी.जी.टी.एम.एस.ई. शु (CGTMSE CHARGE) वष 2019 से 2024 तक िकतना पंजाब नेशनल बक ने मेरे खाते से डे िबट िकया यह सूचना उपल कराय 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"इस संबंध म हम सूिचत करते ह की आपके ारा चाही गई जानकारी पंजाब नेशनल बक से संबंिधत होने से आपके आवेदन को सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 6(3) के अधीन के ीय लोक सूचना अिधकारी, पंजाब नेशनल बक, धान कायालय, िविध भाग (सूचना का अिधकार क ) तीसरी मंिजल, पूव िवंग, ॉट नंबर 4, से र-10, ारका, नई िद ी- 110075 को जानकारी उपल कराने हेतु अंत रत कर रहे ह।"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 2.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.12.2024. Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/137183
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. खाता मांक *******2172 के संदभ म भारतीय रजव बक ऑफ इं िडया का वह घोषणा प , नोिटिफकेशन या गाइडलाइन की छायाकापी उपल कराय िजसम िलखा है िक खाता मांक *******2172 का रे नेवल ेक वष जून महीने म होगा।Page 4 of 18
2. भारतीय रजव बक ऑफ इं िडया का घोषणा प , नोिटिफकेशन या गाइडलाइन हम उपल कराय िजसम िलखा है िक खाता मांक ******2172 का ॉक े टमट हा यीयल से ाटरली कर िदया गया है वह आदे श प छायाकॉपी हम उपल कराय। 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"इस संबंध म हम सूिचत करते ह की आपके ारा चाही गई जानकारी पंजाब नेशनल बक से संबंिधत होने से आपके आवेदन को सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम, 2005 की धारा 6(3) के अधीन के ीय लोक सूचना अिधकारी, पंजाब नेशनल बक, धान कायालय, िविध भाग (सूचना का अिधकार क ) तीसरी मंिजल, पूव िवंग, ॉट नंबर 4, से र-10, ारका, नई िद ी- 110075 को जानकारी उपल कराने हेतु अंत रत कर रहे ह।"
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 3.3. Aggrieved with the non -receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 04.10.2024. Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/117301
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:
संदभ 1 िदनांक 07-01-2020 को ओ रएं टल बक ऑफ कॉमस (िबलय पंजाब नेशनल बक) शाखा खड़काली ठाणे महारा के िव िशकायत के संदभ म माँ गी गयी सूचना
(i) वह आर. बी. आई. या डी. एच. एफ. एल. का घोषणा प हमे उपल कराये िजसमे िलखा है, िक धानमं ी आवास योजना की धनरािश खाता मे आने पर आवास ऋण का थानां तरण नहीं होगा।
(ii) वह आर. बी. आई. का घोषणा प हमे उपल कराये िजसमे िलखा है , िक आवास ऋण का थानां तरण का सशन 4 माह का समय लगता है Page 5 of 18
(iii) वह जय अंबे टे िडं ग कंपनी का सी. सी. खाता मांक बताइये िजसका िलिमट 8,26,000.00 है । जो िदस र 2019 म खड़काली शाखा मे सशन आ है।
(iv) मेरे ारा िदनांक 07-01-2020 को ओ रएं टल बक ऑफ कॉमस बक के ऊपर िकये गये िशकायत पर आपने ओ रएं टल बक ऑफ कॉमस (िबलय पंजाब नेशनल बक) के ऊपर ा कायवाही िकया यह जानकारी हमे उपल कराये।
(v) बक कमचारी और उ ािधकारी िजनका मशः नाम मे. बाला ीवा व, जया वा य, मे. रे नु भािटया, मे. रािगनी िस ा, िम. सुमेध पैकटॉव और िम. वीन गोयल के ऊपर की यी कायवाही की जानकारी हमे उपल कराये। ..., etc./ other related information 4.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) मांगी गयी सूचना की जानकारी उपल नहीं है। (ORBIO Mumbai - 1)
(ii) मांगी गयी सूचना की जानकारी उपल नहीं है। (ORBIO Mumbai - 1)
(iii) मांगी गयी सूचना की जानकारी उपल नहीं है। (ORBIO Mumbai - 1)
(iv) 06 फरवरी 2021 का प संल है । (संल '1')
(v) कृपया संल '2' दे खे । Etc. 4.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.05.2024.
Hearing proceedings & Decision:-
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Siddhant, ACPIO, Mr. Pallav Yadav, Assistant Legal, Mr. Manish Kumar, AGM, Mr. Manorajan, AGM, Ms. Anita, CPIO, from RBI and Mr. Kumal, MGR, (Law) (PNB), attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 6 of 186. In file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140267 and CIC/RBIND/A/2024/117301, the respondent from RBI, submitted that response to the RTI applications have been furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 27.09.2024 and 04.04.2024, wherein, all available information had been provided to the appellant. In file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140373 and CIC/RBIND/A/2024/137183, the respondent stated that the information pertained to the PNB, thus, the RTI applications had been transferred to the CPIO, PNB, concerned vide letter dated 26.09.2024, 05.09.2024. Mr. Kumal, MGR (Law) from PNB, stated that point-wise available information had been furnished to the appellant on 01.10.2024 and 04.10.2024. When enquired by the Commission regarding disposal of the First Appeals, the respondent submitted that First Appeals had been disposed of on 22.11.2024, 29.11.2024, 15.05.2024. A. Written submissions filed by Mr. Manoj Mathur, CPIO, against file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140267 is reproduced as under:-
3. It is submitted that in the second appeal filed before this Hon'ble Commission, the appellant has mentioned the subject as ' R.T.I. dated September 16, 2024' whereas he has enclosed with the appeal a copy of the reply dated September 27, 2024 of the CPIO, DoR in respect of his application dated August 27, 2024, which was received in RBI on August 30, 2024 and registered as RBIND/R/P/24/03990(Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'A'). Thus, I am treating this second appeal as an appeal in respect of the said application dated August 27, 2024 which was received on August 30, 2024. In this regard, it is submitted that in the said RTI application, the appellant had sought information on two points related to his bank account in Punjab National Bank (PNB) and sought a copy of the declaration, notification or guidelines issued by RBI wherein it is stated that the renewal of the said account will be done every year in the month of June and a copy of the declaration, notification or guidelines issued by Page 7 of 18 RBI wherein it is stated that submission of the stock statement, pertaining to the said account, has been changed from half yearly to quarterly.
4. It is submitted that on receipt of the said application in RBI, since some of the matter pertained to Punjab National Bank, the CPIO, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD) of RBI transferred the application to the CPIO, Punjab National Bank under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for providing necessary information to the appellant as may be available with them. The CPIO, HRMD informed about transfer of the application to the appellant vide letter dated September 05, 2024. Thereafter, the CPIO, DoR vide his letter dated September 27,2024, provided the available information with RBI to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'B').
The CPIO informed the appellant that RBI has not issued any specific instructions regarding the queries of the appellant. However, the CPIO further informed that credit related matters of banks are largely deregulated; RBI has advised banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, recovery policy etc. prapared and duly vetted by their Board of Directors; banks are required to take credit related decisions on the basis of Board approved policies and broad regulatory guidelines as well as statutory provisions and a loan is subject to the terms and conditions of loan agreement between the borrower and the lender. The CPIO further advised the appellant to refer to the "Master Circular on "Loans and Advances- Statutory and other Restrictions" dated July 01, 2015, specially para 2.5 on "Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders" of the said Master Circular.
5. Not satisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which was received on October 16, 2024 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-C). In the appeal, the Page 8 of 18 appellant simply contended that the reply given by the CPIO was false, incomplete and misleading. However, he did not specifically mentioned the reasons behind such contentions.
6. After duly considering the appeal, the FAA dismissed the same vide order dated November 22, 2024 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-D). In his order, the FAA observed that the CPIO provided the available information to the appellant to the extent possible and discharged his duties under the RTI Act.
7. It is submitted that in the second appeal also, the appellant has not specifically mentioned about his objections to either the reply of the CPIO or the order of the FAA and has again reiterated that the information provided by the CPIO is false, incomplete and misleading. He has also contended that he preferred a first appeal on October 08, 2024 and after expiry of 60 days also , he did not receive any information. He has requested to provide him the information as sought by him.
8. It is humbly submitted that in response to the RTI application of the appellant, the CPIO has clearly advised the appellant that no specific instructions have been issued by RBI in respect of his queries. As such, the question of providing the specific information does not arise. As observed by the FAA in his order, the CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in order to satisfy the queries of the applicant. The decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE.v. Aditya Bandopadhya and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497 as relied upon by the FAA is reiterated here where it was held by the Supreme Court as under:
"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 Page 9 of 18 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."
It is further submitted that even though RBI has not issued any specific instructions as sought by the appellant, the CPIO has provided the available information concerning his queries and guided him by referring to the Master Circular which is relevant to his queries and provided the link to access the same from the website. Thus, the CPIO provided the information to the extent possible and discharged his duties under the RTI Act. The FAA has also acknowledged that the CPIO has duly provided the available information and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the CPIO as well as the FAA have duly complied with the provisions of the RTI Act." A. Written submissions filed by Mr. Mugunthan Sadagoban, G.M & CPIO against file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140373 is reproduced as under:-
4. The appellant vide his offline RTI request (RBIND/R/P/24/04216 dated September 12, 2024, and registered on September 20, 2024) has requested information regarding an account no. 14104595002172 of Jay Ambe Trading Company at Punjab National Bank. Since this account number is maintained by Punjab National Bank, the entire RTI application was transferred to CPIO of Punjab National Bank under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 for reply at their end. Accordingly, a reply was sent to the applicant vide letter HRMD.CO.RIA S-
7919 through speed post on September 26, 2024 and also uploaded on portal on the same day. (A copy of the RTI request is annexed and marked as Annex A and the reply is marked as Annex B).
5. Being dissatisfied with the reply given by the CPIO, the appellant preferred an appeal dated October 5, 2024, before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) RBI on the grounds that the CPIOs reply is misleading and that he should be provided proper information as sought in his RTI application. (A copy of the First Appeal is marked and annexed as Annex- C).
Page 10 of 186. It is submitted that after having considered the original RTI application preferred by the appellant, the reply issued by the CPIO, and the contents of the appeal, the FAA observed as follows:
"The appellant had filed the RTI application thereby seeking certain information in respect of an account No. 14104595002172 belonging to 'Jay Ambe Trading Company' maintained with Punjab National Bank. The CPIO vide letter dated September 26, 2024, informed that as the matter pertains to Punjab National Bank, the application has been transferred to CPIO, PNB under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the present appeal, the appellant has alleged that the CPIO's reply is misleading and requested to provide information sought in the RTI application. The appellant may note that RBI is the regulator of banking system in India. It does not maintain the information on the bank accounts opened by the public in commercial banks. Further, RBI is not the nodal agency for implementation of RTI Act, 2005 for other Public Authorities/ public sector banks. I do not find any infirmity in transferring the RTI application to the CPIO of PNB under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
In view of the above observations, the FAA did not find any merit in the contentions and allegations of the appellant and accordingly passed a reasoned order dismissing the appeal on November 29, 2024. The Final orders were forwarded to the appellant on December 9, 2024, through speed post. (A copy of the FAA order is marked and annexed as Annex- D and the letter dated December 9, 2024 is marked, and annexed as Annex-E)
7. It is submitted that the appellant has then preferred this second appeal dated December 5, 2024, on the grounds that he has not received any reply on his first appeal hence he should be provided with the requested information. (A copy of the second appeal is marked and annexed as Annex- F) 8. It is submitted that the RTI Page 11 of 18 request by the applicant has been promptly replied to and since the matter pertained to Punjab National Bank, the query was marked to the CPIO of PNB for reply Further, the first appeal too has been processed by the First appellate Authority through its orders dated November 29, 2024 and reply forwarded to the appellant promptly as detailed in para no. 6. 10. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the CPIO and FAA had duly discharged their obligations under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and the statement made by the appellant is without any basis. There is no merit in the appeal and the appellant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him."
A. Written submissions filed by Mr. Manoj Mathur, CPIO, against file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/137183 is reproduced as under:-
3. It is submitted that the appellant Shri Santosh Ramji Pandey had filed an RTI application dated August 28, 2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), which was received in RBI on August 30,2024 and registered as RBIND/R/P/24/03990 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'A'), In his RTI application, the appellant had sought information under two points pertaining to his his bank account in Punjab National Bank(PNB). He sought for a copy of the declaration, notification or guidelines issued by RBI wherein it is stated that the renewal of the said account will be done every year in the month of June and a copy of the declaration, notification or guidelines issued by RBI wherein it is stated that submission of the stock statement, pertaining to the said account, has been changed from half yearly to quarterly.
4. It is submitted that on receipt of the said application in RBI, since some of the matter pertained to Punjab National Bank, the CPIO, Human Resource Management Department (HRMD) of RBI transferred the application to the CPIO, Punjab National Bank(PNB) under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for providing necessary information to the appellant as may be available with them. The CPIO, Page 12 of 18 HRMD informed about transfer of the application to the appellant vide letter dated September 05, 2024. The appellant has attached a copy of the said letter dated September 05, 2024 with his second appeal. Thereafter, the CPIO, DoR vide his letter dated September 27,2024, provided the available information with RBI to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure- 'B'). The CPIO informed the appellant that RBI has not issued any specific instructions regarding the queries of the appellant. However, the CPIO further informed that credit related matters of banks are largely deregulated; RBI has advised banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, recovery policy etc. prapared and duly vetted by their Board of Directors;
banks are required to take credit related decisions on the basis of Board approved policies and broad regulatory guidelines as well as statutory provisions and a loan is subject to the terms and conditions of loan agreement between the borrower and the lender. The CPIO further advised the appellant to refer to the "Master Circular on "Loans and Advances- Statutory and other Restrictions"
dated July 01, 2015, specially para 2.5 on "Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders" of the said Master Circular.
5.Not satisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO, the appellant preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which was received on October 16, 2024 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-C). In the appeal, the appellant simply contended that the reply given by the CPIO was false, incomplete and misleading. However, he did not specifically mentioned the reasons behind such contentions.
6. After careful examination of the RTI application, response of the CPIO and the appeal, the FAA dismissed the appeal vide order dated November 22, 2024 (Copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-D). In his order, the FAA observed that CPIO Page 13 of 18 has provided the information to the appellant to the extent possible and has therefore discharged his duties under the RTI Act.
7. It is submitted that the appellant in the present appeal dated October 04, 2024 filed before this Hon'ble Commission has contended that he has not received any reply from the CPIO and after filing the First appeal also he did not receive any information within 45 days. He has requested to provide him the information as sought by him.
8. In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant has enclosed with his second appeal a copy of the letter dated September 05, 2024 of the CPIO, HRMD thereby informing him about transfer of his application to PNB and his appeal is dated October 04, 2024. However, the CPIO, DoR has provided the reply vide his letter dated September 27, 2024. Thus, it is possible that the appellant has filed this appeal before receiving the said letter dated September 27, 2024 of the CPIO, DoR. Further, the FAA has disposed of the appeal vide his order dated November 22, 2024, i.e. after preferring the second appeal by the appellant. Incidentally, it is submitted that the appellant has filed another second appeal before this Hon'ble Commission in respect of the reply dated September 27, 2024 of the CPIO, DoR which is numbered as CIC/RBIND/A/2024/140267 and a written submission has been made by the CPIO, DoR in respect to the said appeal before this Hon'ble Commission.
9. It is humbly submitted that the CPIO, DoR has duly complied with the provisions of the RTI Act by responding to the RTI application. Since no specific instructions have been issued by RBI in respect of the points of the appellant, the CPIO has informed the same to the appellant and also provided the relevant available information to him. It is further submitted that as no specific instruction is not available, the question of providing the specific information does not arise. Further, the FAA after duly considering the appeal has dismissed the appeal as he Page 14 of 18 did not find any infirmity with the reply furnished by the CPIO. Thus, the FAA has also discharged his duties under the RTI Act. In light of the same, there is no merit in the contentions of the appellant in second appeal.
10. It is humbly submitted that Section 21 of the RTI Act provides protection of action taken in good faith. The CPIO has considered the application of the appellant within the purview of the RTI Act and FAA has also duly considered the appeal. There is no procedural lacuna or any mala- fide intention on the part of the CPIO in replying to the appellant or on the part of the FAA in dealing with the appeal. Thus, it is submitted that the CPIO and the FAA have duly complied with the provisions of the RTI Act and there is no merit in the contentions of the appellant.
A written submission filed by Mr. Raksha Mishra, CPIO, against file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2024/117301 is reproduced as under:-
In case of information sought regarding the action taken on DHFL and PMAY scheme, the CPIO has informe the complainant that the information sought is not available. It is ascertained from the records that the CPIO reply was received by the appellant on April 12. 2024
5. The appellant, apparently before receipt of the CPIO reply, filed first appeal before the FAA (First Appellate Authority) vide letter dated April 10, 2024, which was received on April 19, 2024, and registered as appeal No. RBIND/A/P/24/00138. The First Appellate Authority considered the RTI application filed by the appellant and the reply of the CPIO and observed that the CPIO vide his reply had pr
6. ovided the available information to the appellant. The FAA further observed that the appellant had filed the appeal on the sole ground of non-receipt of reply in spite of the fact that the reply was issued well within the time period prescribed under the RTI Act and delivered to the appellant. Additionally, the FAA also provided the opportunity to the appellant to prefer an appeal to the FAA on merits in case the Page 15 of 18 appellant is not satisfied with the reply provided by the CPIO. A copy of the FAA order dated May 15, 2024, is enclosed, and marked as Annex V.
6. The appellant has filed the present appeal wherein he has acknowledged the receipt of reply of the CPIO and contended that the same was incomplete and misleading. Additionally. the appellant has also claimed that he has not received any reply from the FAA in response to his first appeal application prayed that the information sought be provided to him. In this regard, it is submitted that 6.1 The appellant RTI application dated March 05, 2024, was received on March 06,2024 and the same was replied by the CPIO on April 04, 2024, which is well within the statutory period of 30 days as provided under the RTI Act. The appellant has in this second appeal already acknowledged the receipt of the reply of the CPIO 6.2 The Appellant has filed his first appeal vide letter dated April 10, 2024, which was received on April 19, 2024, and disposed by the FAA vide order dated May 15, 2024, which is also well within the statutory limit of 30 days as provided under the RTI Act.
7. It is also submitted that the CPIO has provided the appellant with a query wise reply which has been acknowledged by him, and that under the RTI Act the CPIO is obligated to provide information which is available. The RTI Act does not mandate the CPIO to collect or collate information which is not available with the public authority and then furnish it to an applicant In this regard, reliance is placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011 (8) SCC 497 which are as follows "35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the Page 16 of 18 definitions of information and right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section & 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 dos not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then fumish it to an applicant.
7. In view of the above submissions, it is most humbly submitted that the CPIO and the FAA have duly discharged their duties as contemplated under the RTI Act and available information has already been provided to the appellant. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO's concerned have provided appropriate replies to the appellant vide letters date 27.09.2024, 04.04.2024, 01.10.2024 and 04.10.2024. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.04.2025 Page 17 of 18 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 Regulation, Central Office, Central Office Building, 12th & 13th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001
2. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, CPIO, (Law Division), Head Office: Plot No.-4, 3rd Floor, East Wing-(A), Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 3 The CPIO O/o. The Rbi Ombudsman (Mumbai-1), CPIO, RTI CELL, C/o. Reserve Bank Of India, Byculla Office Building, 4th Floor, Opp. Mumbai Central Railway Station, Byculla, Mumbai-400008 4 Santosh Ramji Pandey Page 18 of 18 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)