Central Information Commission
Shri. Veer Sain vs Reserve Bank Of India on 18 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001369/SG/15757
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001369/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Veer Sain d/o Deepak Saini
#1344, Barkat Nagar
Near Govind Devji Temple
Jaipur-302015
Contact no. 09214436642
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Joshi,
CPIO & General Manager RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Department of Administration & Personnel Management, Central Office, Amar Bldg, P.M. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Tel: 022-22632366 RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010 PIO replied : 20/10/2010 First appeal filed on : 23/11/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 18/01/2011 Second Appeal received on : 11/05/2011 Information Sought:
1. In compliance with the order of the Appellate Authority dated May 11,2010 , the CPIO vide letter DNBS.CO.INF.6582/10.07.005/2009-10 Dated June 08,2010 replied that in the area of regulation and supervision, all officers of DNBS irrespective of grade execute decisions either taken by the top management or under the regulations as provided in the RBI Act ,1934 or directions issued there under.
Please inform me what is the meaning of top management and who constitutes the top management and as per which provisions RBI Act, Regulations or directions issued there under.
2. Since there is no defined difference in power of different grades of officers working in the areas of Regulation and Supervision Why so many posts of CGM, CM, DGM etc have been created. Please provide me the copies of the note sheets put up to justify the creation of additional posts in the above cadres in these departments like DBOO, DBS, UBD and during last 15 years.
3. It is stated in the reply that Shri Vijay Kumar Nayak, DGM, Shri Anil Kumar Saxsena, Assistant Manager and Shri RP Singh, AC.M had scrutinized the Balance sheet as on 31 March 2007 of SIFCL and the return NBS 1A as on 31 March 2007 was scrutinized by Shri Anil Kumar Saxsena. A copy of scrutiny sheet in both the cases may please be provided. Whether all these office, I have been promoted in the mean time and if so details thereof may please be provided. '
4. Please provide me copies of processing note disposing off RIA application 2823/2009-10 and Appeal 08 of 2010.
5. Why no action has been initiated against the erring officials and CAs in the matter after the negligence in performance of their duty was brought to the notice of the Bank.
6. Letter dated 30 Dec 2009; it was informed that there are no manuals! rules/ regulations governing the review of performance of the lawyers. In a similar manner it is stated that there is no laid down procedure Page 1 of 5 to select and engage lawyers to appear on behalf of the bank. Which department of the bank is responsible to lay down internal procedures in the matter? Please advise me the step if any taken by that department to overcome the deficiency in this area when every year the bank spends more than rupees 2 crore towards legal expenses and selection of right lawyer and review of their performance can significantly reduce this expenditure and bring in efficiency in this area.
7. Please advise me the number of cases pending before any court filed by the bank or defended by it for more than five years. Please advise me what is the system in place to monitor the progress of the case and review to close the case in case it need not to be pursued due to time lag or due to any other reason. Please inform which department is supposed to monitor and the pending cases and what interval such review takes place.
8. As per Annual Report for 2009-10 RBI has agreed to invest up to an amount of us$5 billion (Rs 23,300 crore) in the bonds issued by the India Infrastructure Finance Company (UK) Ltd and so far RsJ165 crore has been invested. Please advise me the interest rate on such bond and the mode' of interest payment. Whether the above company is a Govt owned company or a Joint venture company or Private sector company. At what interest rate afore referred company will lend to Indian companies either in foreign currency or Indian rupee.
9. The annual report revealed that the investments of the Banking Department stood at Rs 3, 10,O68 crore but no details of the same has not been provided in the narrative portion 32,904 crore out as FCA (Foreign Currency Assets) included in the investments and 601 Rupee securities of Rsl,92,901/- do not add up to the total investments. Please advise the broad other investments of the Bank.
10. Please provide me the information in regard to foreign currency assets which had to be written off for default in non repayment of principal and interest if any during last five years
11. Please provide a copy of major findings of Mis Hewitt Associates and what is the amount paid as fees paid to them.
12. 99 officers have taken advantage of Golden Jubilee Scholarship Scheme for Higher Studies. How many of them have resigned and left the bank by now.
13. In case of delay in credit to the account of beneficiary under RTGS whether the remitter is compensates for any loss sustained by him if the delay is due to none of the lapse of the remitter.
14. Why the awards passed by Banking ombudsman and the decisions of Appellate authority are not put on RBI web site year wise to benefit the bank customers.
15. What is the amount spent so far by the bank to obtain (SO certification for various departments/ centre wise and what is the annual fee if any paid for the same?
16. Whether approval of Ministry of Finance is required to revise the salary of employees and officers of the bank, if so whether it is prior or post facto approval.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The reply were sent by the different PIOs of the RBI itself but not enclosed. PIO replied in response to your queries at serial numbers 5, 6 & 7 of the request, we advise as under:
5. The query is not clear and incomplete.
6. It can be seen from the query that you have not mentioned the details of the letter dated December 30, 2009 viz., number, issued by which Department/Office etc. In view of this, we regret our inability to provide any information.
7. Court cases-both for and against the Reserve Bank are disposed- across the country and they are monitored by the Regional Offices. The global information in this matter is not available in compiled form and as such we are unable to furnish the information.
8. Cases which have been filed by and against the Reserve Bank pertains to various Departments and Regional Offices. The concerned Department/Regional Office which is defending/filing the case is required to monitor and review the case at regular interval as and when the case/s is/are listed. - -
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided by the PIO is unsatisfactory and incomplete.Page 2 of 5
Order of the FAA:
2.. It is seen that the above application was submitted by applicant to the CPIO of the RBI calling upon him to supply information relating to various subjects. Since the information sought by the appellant as mentioned in query numbers (1) to (16) of his application were related to different departments of the RIM, his queries were forwarded to respective departments. Queries No.1&2 were forwarded to Department of Administration and Personnel Management (DAPM), Queries No.3&4 were forwarded to Department of Non Banking Supervision (DNBS), Queries No.5,6 &7 were forwarded to RIA Division (MAD), Query No.8 was forwarded to Department of External Investments and Operations (DEIO), Queries No.9 MO were forwarded to Department of Economic Analysis and Policy (DEAP) which were subsequently forwarded to DEIO and Department of Government and Bank Accounts (DGBA) respectively.
Queries No.11,12 &16 were forwarded to Human Resources and Development 1partment (HRDD), Query No.13 was forwarded to Department of Payment System and Settlement (DPSS), Query No.14 was forwarded to Customer Service department (CSD) and Query No.15 was forwarded to Inspection Department of the RBI for furnishing information to the appellant. He was informed about the same by letter dated 19.10.2010.
3. CPIO, DAPM, by his letter dated 2211.2010 has replied to the queries N$ & 2 of the original application. Queries No.3 & 4 were replied by CPIO, DN> his letter dated 19.11.2010. Queries No.5, 6 & 7 were replied by CPIO , DAPM by his letter dated 20.10.2010. Query No.8, was replied by CPIO, DEIO by her letter dated 26.10.2010. Query No.9, was replied by CPIO, DGBA by his letter dated 28.10.2010. Query No. 10 was replied by CPIO, DEIO, by her letter dated 26.11.2010. Queries No. 11, 12 & 16 were replied by CPIO, HRDD by his letter dated 01/12/1210. Query No.13, was replied by CPIO, DPSS by his letter dated 13.10.2010. Query No.14, was replied by CPIO, CSD by his letter dated 25.10.2010. Query No. 15, was replied by CPIO, Inspection Department by his letter dated 26.11.2010. The copies of all the above-mentioned replies are enclosed herewith for ready reference.
4. Not being satisfied with the reply given by some of the CPIOs, the appellant has preferred this appeal before me. I have gone through the papers and considered the contentions of appellant. The grounds formulated by appellant and my observations thereon are as under. Ground No. 1- The reply to the queries raised by the appellant was not supplied through email in spite of the repeated requests made by him. The appellant has also urged the Appellate Authority to pull up the CPIOs to reply through email. My observations: The appellant had requested for a reply from CPIO through email. The CPIOs have sent their replies to all his queries either by Speed Post or by Registered A.D. In the present case, since the CPIOs have sent replies to all his queries through acceptable and conventional mode of communication viz; by Speed Post or by Registered A.D., the appeal with regard to non-supply of information through email does not require my interference. However, CPIOs concerned are directed to issue their reply to the applicants by email whenever there is a request to that effect Ground No.2- The queries No.1, 2,3,4,7 and 10 raised by the appellant have not been replied within the statutory period.
My observations: As the CPIOs have since issued reply to all his queries, the ground urged by appellant in the appeal regarding non receipt of information does not survive. It is observed that, many of the replies have been issued after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. In view of the nature of queries involving various departments of the Bank there appears to be marginal delay. However, I direct the CPIOs of DAPM, DNBS, and DEIO to avoid such delay in future. Ground No.3- Second part of query no.11 of the application which relates to the amount of fees paid to MIs. Hewitt Associates has not been replied. He has further urged that, since the annual report does not mention about the activities covered by M/s. Hewitt Associates and he is not aware of the scope of their activity, he may be provided with major findings of each activity covered by MIs. Hewitt Associates. My observations: In response to queiy no.11, CPIO, HRDD by his letter dated 01.11.2010 replied that, the query is not specific as to findings of which activity undertaken by MIs. Hewitt Associates is required by the applicant.
Page 3 of 5In light of the clarifications, now furnished by the appellant, CPIO is directed to provide the major findings of each activity covered by MIs. Hewitt to the extent permissible under RTI Act As regards the fees paid to M/s. Hewitt Associates I direct the CPIO, HRDD to provide the said information to the extent permissible under RTI Act Ground No.4 - The appellant submits that the reply given to query no. 7 of his application is evasive. Appellant has alleged that, the statement that the central office is not having the total number of pending cases, when no case can be filed or defended without the authority from ED is deliberate suppression of ct He has also alleged that RBI is trying hard to hide rather than shaze tf infcuanatha He has requested in his appeal to provide the ink nnatkm sought by query No.7.
My observations: In reply to query No.?, the CPIO, DAPM has stated that, court cases both for and against the Reserve Bank are dispersed across the country and they are monitored by various Departments/Regional Offices.
The global information in this matter is not available in compiled form and as such he is unable to furnish the information. There can be no doubt that under RTI Act, a public authority is expected to provide only that information which it holds. The RTI Act does not mandate a public authority to compile information for the purpose of replying to an applicant. The CIC in the case of A. Santosh Mathew v. DOPT (Decision No. 236/ IC (A)/2006-F. CIC,/ MA/2006/00636 -- Dated 11th September2006), has inter-alia observed as under: "Thus a CPIO is expected to provide the information available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create afresh one merely because someone has asked for it."
In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the reply provided by the CPIO. Ground No.5- The appellant has stated that queries no.3&4 of his application were followed by query no.5 and has urged for providing reply to queiy in 5. The Appellant by query No. 5 had sought the information as to why no action has been initiated against the erring officials and Chartered Accountants in the matter after the negligence in performance of their duty was brought to the notice of the Bank. My observations -While replying to query No.5, the CPIO, DAPM has stated that the qusy of the appellant is not dear and incomplete. On a combined ieading of quedes No.3,4 & 5 it appears ut the information sought is relating to officials who allegedly erred in the matter of scrutiny of Balance sheet of SIFCL. I direct the CPIO to verify whether there is anything on record in this regaid. In case any information is available, the same may be provided to the appellant, to the extent permissible under RTI Act.
Ground No.6- The appellant has furnished the number and date of the letter referred to by him in his query No.6 and sought for the reply.
My observations: The content of the letter in question as stated by appellant in his query is self explanatory. I do not consider it necessary to issue any further direction to CPI0 in this regard. Ground No.7- The appellant states that query no. 8 of his application was replied without providing the information like the margin, if any and the periodicity at which the rate of interest is received in cash. The applicant has requested to furnish the same.
My observations: In query No. 8 of his application, appellant while referring to annual report for 2009- 2010 and RBI's investments in bonds issued by India Infrastructure Finance Company (UK) Ltd, sought the information to the interest rate on such bond and mode of interest payment The appellant also sought to know whether the above company is a Govt. owned company or a joint venture company or Private sector company. He further wanted to know at what interest rate above referred company would lend to Indian companies either in foreign currency or Indian rupee.
CPIO, DEIO by her letter dated 26.10010 replied to all the information sought in query no 8 .. The appellant is hoping to seek new information regarding margin and periodicity of receiving interest which it is not permissible at the appellate stage. The following observations of the CIC in this regard are relevant.
"At the appellate stage, an appellant cannot ask for additional information which had not been sought from the CPIO. In case the appellant seeks additional information, he may do so, through a fresh application to the CPIO. Appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits." Decision of CIC in the ms of C. Srinivasan v. NTPC Limited (Appeal No.ICPB/A-12/CIC/2006 -- Order dated 05-04-2006).Page 4 of 5
As the available information has been provided by the CPIO, DEIO I do not find any scope for interfering with the reply given by CPIO, DEIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory and incomplete.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. B. S. Bohra, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Ashok Joshi, CPIO & General Manager on video conference from NIC-Mumbai City Studio; The respondent states that information on query 3, 4 & 5 as directed by the FAA has been provided to the Appellant. It appears that the information available on the records has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
Information available on the records appears to have been provided. This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 November 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr) Page 5 of 5