Central Information Commission
Shiv Kumar Kanoi vs Reserve Bank Of India on 23 April, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/650121 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/647300 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/656319 +
CIC/RBIND/A/2023/656123
Shiv Kumar Kanoi ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai & Kolkata ... ितवादीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl No. Second Date of Date of Date of FA Date of Date of SA
Appeal RTI CPIO's FAO
No. Application Reply
1. 650121 30.05.2023 14.06.2023 19.07.2023 30.08.2023 26.10.2023
2. 647300 27.05.2023 26.06.2023 28.07.2023 07.09.2023 04.10.2023
3. 656319 24.07.2023 21.08.2023 09.09.2023 09.11.2023 26.12.2023
4. 656123 25.07.2023 23.08.2023 29.09.2023 25.10.2023 23.12.2023
Note: The above referred matters have been clubbed for decision as these are based
on a similar subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 18.04.2024
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 13
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/650121
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2023 seeking the following information:
"With reference to repeated emails reminders letters series of complaints as required information not been provided in spite of lying with your office records. however humble submission before you to provide an inspection of records towards above mentioned subject matter including the copies of letters issued by the rbi to central bank of India towards my repeated complaint and the records of reply received by central bank of India towards my complaints made to you in the matter of non-execution of terms of lease deed and forceful illegal occupation as a trespasser even prepared forged illegal documents by suppressed the signed copies of commitment and settlement suppressed and continuously issuing false fabricated misleading information to ministry of finance even your office and PMO MOF MOS DFS DPG CVC and others. humble prayer to provide an opportunity to inspection of entire records and correspondence exchanged between above mentioned highest authorities of our nation as per your office records. further prayer to verify the contents of above-mentioned attachments."
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 14.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The query is not specific."
Further, since applicant has lodged numerous emails/ complaints/ reminders with Reserve Bank of India. The records are spread across different offices of RBI. Hence, we are unable to accede to the request of the applicant. Further, the applicant may refer to our replies for his earlier RTI applications- RBIND/R/E/21/07918; RBIND/R/P/21/01230; RBIND/R/P/22/01887; RBIND/R/P/23/00059; RBIND/R/E/23/00593 which were on the same/related matter.
Page 2 of 13Further, the applicant is requesting initiation of action which is not covered under Right to information Act, 2005."
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 19.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 26.10.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/647300
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.05.2023 seeking information regarding an email dated 26.05.2020 on the following points:
(i) "Seeking information that my above attached email duly received by governor RBI and other concerned authorities duly mentioned in the above email kindly provide information as per records of the RBI office.
(ii) Provide information that the RNI Mumbai given any reply towards my above email in the matter of a complaint against MD CEO of central bank of India. Provide the copy of reply as per records of the bank.
(iii) Provide information that the honorable governor and other concerned authorities has taken any steps towards my above-mentioned complaints.
Provide the details and copies issued to central bank of India and his concerned authorities towards my above-mentioned complaints.
(iv) Provide the copy of reply received by the central bank of India towards letter issued by the RBI on the basis of received my above complaint.
(v) Provide the information that in spite of repeated reminders and RTI application given to RBI to provide an appropriate reply towards my above complaint. provide the copy of reply issued by the RBI Mumbai. ...etc. Page 3 of 13 2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.06.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (i) to (iv) - The query is not specific since applicant is seeking information regarding email addressed to multiple email IDs of officials of Reserve Bank of India. However, email dated May 26, 2020, enclosed with the RTI application received by the Office of the Governor, RBI was subsequently received by Consumer Education and Protection Department. lt was treated as 'Not a complaint' under draft ID 00751781 since a reply on the same matter was sent to the applicant vide email dated May 11, 2020."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 28.07.2023. The FAA vide order dated 07.09.2023 observed as under:
"I observe that the reply given by the CPIO do not indicate whether the said reply, as received from the Central Bank of India, has been shared with the Appellant. In view of this, I direct the CPIO to share a copy/copy of the communication as received from the CBI in respect of the aforementioned complaints within three working days from the date of receipt of this Order in accordance of the provisions of the RTI Act."
2.3 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 04.10.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/656319
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.07.2023 seeking the following information:
(i) "With reference to series of letters & complaints made to you in the matter of worst unfair attitude maintaining by MD CEO of Central Bank of India Sri Matam Venkata Rao & Management. Evidences also been submitted that a I refused to pay bribe the MD CEO prepared a false fabricated minutes & further approval without my consent & awareness duly objected even complaint made to you & after a lapse of 3 years the Mumbai office issued a letter with confirmation that the said minutes Page 4 of 13 & approval was prepared without any of my consent awareness & for the said reason the said approval carrying no legal validity results crores of rupees became outstanding dues on the ban due to non-compliance of terms of lease deed even forceful illegally occupied the branch premises after expiry of lease deed 31.12.2018 by violating the Guideline of RBI & CVC. Repeated complaints submitted to you but not get any response.
(ii) However, attaching a copy of my letter dated 30.11.2021. My required information is provided the details of steps taken by you being the Respectable Governor RBI Mumbai. Provide the copy of reply given by you towards attached letter. Your reply is very much required to be submitted before the Honorable Court towards pending cases. If you have given the reply of above letter kindly provide the copy of reply as your CPIO is continuously issuing misleading information towards my RTI applications that your office already replied to my above letter."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point (i) - These are mere statements. The applicant is not seeking any 'information' as defined under Section 2(0 of the 'Right to information Act, 2005'. Further, the applicant may refer to our reply dated February 23,2023 (copy enclosed) to his earlier RTI application RBTND/R/E/23l00593 which was on the same/ related matter.
Point (ii) - The letter dated November 30, 2021, enclosed with the RTI application is not addressed to the Governor, RBI and was not received by the Office of the Governor, RBI.
However, the applicant may refer to our reply dated February 23, 2023 (copy enclosed) to his earlier RII application RBTND/R/E/23l00593."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 09.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 09.11.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 5 of 133.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 26.12.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/656123
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.07.2023 seeking the following information:
"With reference to series of letters & complaints made to you in the matter of worst unfair attitude maintaining by MD CEO of Central Bank of India Sri Matam Venkata Rao & Management. Evidences also been submitted that a I refused to pay bribe the MD CEO prepared a false fabricated minutes & further approval without my consent & awareness duly objected even complaint made to you & after a lapse of 3 years the Mumbai office issued a letter with confirmation that the said minutes & approval was prepared without any of my consent awareness & for the said reason the said approval carrying no legal validity results crores of rupees became outstanding dues on the ban due to non-compliance of terms of lease deed even forceful illegally occupied the branch premises after expiry of lease deed 31.12.2018 by violating the Guideline of RBI & CVC. Repeated complaints submitted to you but not get any response. However, attaching a copy of my letter dated. My required information is provide the details of steps taken by you being the Respectable Governor RBI Mumbai. Provide the copy of reply given by you towards attached letter. Your reply is very much required to submit before Honorable Court towards pending cases. If you have given the reply of above letter kindly provide the copy of reply as your CPIO is continuously issuing misleading information towards my RTI applications that your office already replied my above letter Regards."Page 6 of 13
4.1 The CPIO, RBI, Kolkata replied vide letter dated 23.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
A. "No such RTI application dated 28.01 .2023 by RTI applicant could be observed on RTI Portal.
B. (i) The email dated 01.01.2023 of RTI applicant is not present in CMS. However, the email dated 02.01 .2023 of the RTI Applicant was registered in Complaint Management System (CMS) Portal of RBI on 04.01 .2023 as Complaint No. N202223023362987. The complaint was regarding:
a) non-compliance of the terms and conditions of lease agreement of the complainant's premises provided to the bank (Central Bank of India) and its forceful occupation of premises by bank even after the expiry of lease agreement on 31.12.2018.
b) Not-replying of reminders, advocate letters, RTI application and for not taking action against the corrupt authorities of Central Bank of India in spite of submission to PMO/ Ministry finance/RBI/C VC/DFS/MOS/Cabinet Secretary/MD/CEO for immediate steps.
(ii) The complaint No. N202223023362987 was treated as non-maintainable and was closed by CRPC on 04.01.2023 under Clause 10 (2) (b) (i) of the Reserve Bank
- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021: the complaint is 'Pending before / Dealt with / Settled by an Ombudsman'. The Closure Intimation for complaint No. N202223023362987 was forwarded to the RTI Applicant to his email id: [email protected] by CRPC on 04.01.2023.
(iii) In the earlier complaint (CMS complaint number N202122005013847 dated 25.11.2021) the complaint had stated that he had availed three loans from the bank for which bank has been charging excess interest from him. Further, he has also mentioned that bank was using his property for business purpose, however, the Page 7 of 13 bank has not paid the rent to the complainant as per the agreement dated 04/12/2021 between both the parties.
The bank (Central Bank of India) had uploaded its reply in CMS Portal of RBI on 04.12.2021 stating that the complainant Shiv Kumar Kanoi, landlord of erstwhile Beliaghata branch (now merged with Salt Lake branch) is defaulter of loans and the branch has taken possession of Beliaghata premises through SARFAESI Act, 2002 and earlier he had lodged several complaints in twitter, PMO site, Bank's Internal portal and RBI as also filed several RTI Appeals. The bank further stated that it had already replied to all RTI queries of the complainant. Further, the bank stated in its reply that it has already formed a committee with Higher Officials to negotiate and settle the case. The matter is now sub-judice. From the reply and documentary evidence provided by the bank, it was observed that the complainant's loan account had turned NPA, hence bank took the possession of the mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the matter was under subjudice. The complaint was, accordingly, closed u/c 10(2)(b)(ii) of RB-IOB, 2021 on 27.01 .2022. The Closure Intimation was sent to the complainant's email id: s [email protected] on 14.07.2022. Further, as no additional prayer was made in the complaint No. N202223023362987 dated 04.01.2023, the complaint was treated as non- maintainable and was closed by CRPC on 04.01 .2023 u/c 10 (2)(b)(i) of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021: the complaint is 'Pending before! Dealt with / Settled by an Ombudsman'. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the RTI Applicant to his email Id:
[email protected] by CRPC on 04.01.2023. C-M. For the query raised by the RTI Applicant under serial No. C to M, it is observed from CMS grievance redress portal that no such emails were received by the portal and designated as complaint. As per available records, the following Page 8 of 13 complaints are found to be registered in CMS Portal of RBI vis-à-vis the emails/physical letters received from the RTI applicant.
a) Complaint No. N202324023086095 received as physical letter- alleged excess charges being imposed by Regulated Entity (RE) and that his property has been used by RE for business purpose without paying rent. The complaint was closed by CRPC on 29.05.2023 u/c 10(2)(b)(i) of Reserve Bank- Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the complainant's email id: s kanoiyahoo.com on 29.05.2023.
b) Complaint No. N202324023139558- received through email (dated 28.06.2023
--not mentioned in the list of RTI applicant)- not addressed to RBI Ombudsman directly- Closed by CRPC u/c 10(1)(c) of RB-lOS, 2021 on 28.06.2023. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the complainant's email id: request.22yahoo.com on 28.06.2023.
c) Complaint No. N202324023147342 -- received through physical letter regarding status of complaints through letters/ emails/RTI- The complaint was treated as non-maintainable complaint and was closed by ORBIOI, Kolkata under Clause 16(1)(a) read with clause 10 (2) (b) (i) of the Reserve Bank -
Integrated Ombudsman Scheme,2021: the complaint is 'Pending before / Dealt with! Settled by an Ombudsman. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the complainant's email id: skanoicyahoo.com on 07.07.2023.
d) Complaint No. N202324023143473- received through physical letter regarding unfair attitudes of MD, CEO of Central Bank of India with the prayers for justified intervention in the matter and non-reply of RTI application filed- closed by CRPC on 30.06.2023 u/c 10 (2) (b) (ii) of RBIOS,2021 which states, the complaint is 'Sub-judice (Pending before / Dealt with /Settled by a Court/Tribunal/Arbitrator)'. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the complainant's email Id: [email protected] on 30.06.2023.
Page 9 of 13e) Complaint No. N202324023218249- received through physical letter regarding the prayer sought for justice for allegedly occupied complainant's premises by Central Bank of India even after the expiry of lease agreement. The complaint, being a duplicate complaint has been closed u/c 16(1)(a) read with 10(2)(b)(i) of RB-IOS 2021 - The complaint is Pending before / Dealt with/ Settled by an RBIO by RBIO, Kolkata-1 on 23/08/2023. The Closure Intimation was forwarded to the complainant on 23.08.2023."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 29.09.2023. The FAA vide order dated 25.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on 23.12.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Deepika Kadrekar, Manager & Rep. of CPIO, RBI, Mumbai along with Satish Chandra, GM & Rep. of CPIO and Sankalp Tyagi, Legal Advisor, RBI, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent(s) reiterated the replies provided to each of the instant RTI Applications as already available on record and in particular, the Rep. of CPIO, RBI, Mumbai invited the attention of the bench to the written submissions filed by their CPIO on 16.04.2024 with certain common arguments in three of the above referred cases stating as under:
"The appellant has filed the present appeal contending that the CPIO and FAA have failed to provide information with respect to his RTI application and accordingly penalty be imposed on them. The appellant has also contended that he has been unable to take Page 10 of 13 steps towards genuine redressal of complaints on account of non-receipt of information from the CPIO and the FAA.
With regard to the contention of the appellant in appeal, it is once again submitted that the queries of the appellant are not specific. It is further brought to the kind attention of this Honorable Commission that the appellant has already filed multiple RTI applications on the same/related matters and appropriate replies have already been issued to the appellant on several occasions. The CPIO has duly discharged the obligations under RTI Act.
9. With regard to the contentions of the appellant in appeal, it is submitted that the CPIO has provided point wise reply to the appellant and all available information which included copies of emails of Central Bank of India and other related documents regarding his complaint. It is submitted that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to create or collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant...."
7. The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the instant set of cases are a mere extension of a batch of earlier cases of the Appellant decided by this bench on 20.12.2023 vide File No. CIC/RUGBK/A/2021/651583/CBIND + 12 other appeal(s) against Central Bank of India. The Respondent in the instant cases have also contended repetition and lack of specifics contained in the Appellant's RTI Applications, corresponding to the observations made by the Commission in the averred batch matters. Subsequent to the decision of 20.12.2023, the Commission has reiterated the square applicability of the same with respect to a series of multiple appeal(s) of the Appellant heard on 15.04.2024 & 16.04.2024 vide File No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2023/131970; CIC/CBIND/A/2023/638421 + 13 other appeal(s) and File No. CIC/CBIND/A/2023/641666 + over 20 other appeal(s) against Central Bank of India; Department of Financial Services and Reserve Bank of India. The instant set of matters were also heard alongside over 20 additional appeal(s) of the Appellant against the same public authorities. At the cost of repetition, the Commission is reiterating the relevant portion of the earlier decision as under:
Page 11 of 13"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that concededly, the Appellant is relentlessly filing RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter of his grievance about loan repayment; lease deed etc. for over 5 years now. A bare perusal of the contents of the RTI Applications under reference in indicative of the fact that access to information is not the concern of the Appellant as none of his RTI Applications seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and yet most of these Applications fail to even adhere to the word limit prescribed under Rule 3 of RTI Rules, 2012. The Appellant is asking the CPIO to confirm and deny statements; verify records; create records, all of which appears to be aimed at mortifying the CPIOs under the garb of exercising his right to information. It is a matter of record as brought out in the written submissions of the Respondent(s) that on two occasions, the Commission has previously held that the Appellant has been facilitated enough with available records and opportunities of inspection, yet he has remained unsatisfied. Even during the course of the hearing in the instant set of matters, the Appellant was unable to specify any "record" or "information", rather he was expressing his angst against the Respondent office in a rhetoric manner by quoting past conduct of the Bank vis-à-vis his RTI Applications..."
"The Appellant is reminded that filing the same request with the CPIO by a mere inter play of words will not change the narrative of the case which has been already decided by the Commission. He is therefore strongly advised to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications on the same grievance as his future appeals/complaint on the same matter are liable to be summarily dismissed. The Respondents are also advised to take reference of the instant decision while dealing with any future RTI Applications of the Appellant on the same subject matter."
8. Adverting to the foregoing observations, the instant appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Page 12 of 13Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 22.04.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Reserve Bank of India, CPIO,
Consumer Education and Protection Department,
Central Office, 1st Floor, Amar Bldg.,
Sir P. M. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001
2. The CPIO
O/O, THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN.
NODAL CPIO, RTI CELL, C/O,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. 4TH
FLOOR, 15, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD,
KOLKATA-700001
2. Shiv Kumar Kanoi
Page 13 of 13
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)