Central Information Commission
Mrsat Paul Singla vs Reserve Bank Of India on 19 January, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001377
Appellant : Shri S.P. Singla, Panchkula
Public Authority : Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : January 19, 2016
Date of Decision : January 19, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Represented by Shri Anirudh Wadhwa - through VC
Respondent : Shri A. Abhilash, ALA and Ms Divya Sood Daur, GM -
through (VC)
ORDER
1. Vide his RTI application dated 27.12.2014, Shri S.P. Singla sought information relating to Caution Advice No. 3425 issued by RBI in the context of serious irregularities by M/s Sarvodaya Highway Ltd, Chandigarh and its basis and nexus with M/s S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd., etc.
2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 27.1.2015, intimated the appellant the reasons of issuing caution advices to banks and denied information regarding the special audit of bank's branch concerned u/s 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant approached the first appellate authority who upheld the decision of the CPIO. Dissatisfied with the adjudication of his first appeal, the appellant wrote to the Commission stating that 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) are relevant in the matter, therefore the denial of information to him was inappropriate.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative stated that they had only asked for the Caution Advice in the context of their company and there was no question of disclosure of such information affecting the economic interest of the State and also no commercial confidence was involved as the matter related to the issue of a Caution Advice only. He added that the RBI did not maintain this information in fiduciary capacity for anybody therefore exemption u/s 8(1)(e) was not relevant. Further, the respondents had not given any reason for non availability of record for denying the information. Therefore, the appellant should be provided the information being sought by him. The respondents stated that Caution Advice was prepared by RBI based on the fraud monitoring return as when a bank comes across a fraud, it has to be reported to the RBI and information being sought pertains to the fraud monitoring return. The appellant also figures on behalf of S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd. They added that a writ petition has been filed in the High Court in the matter and also that the Caution Advice was not given to the borrower but to the banks concerned and the appellant already possessed the copy which became an exhibit in the court proceedings. Since the caution was not given to the appellant, their denial of information on this was correct. They further added that the banks do not forward the internal audit report to the RBI.
4. The Commission observes that as per the RBI, the name of the appellant's company also figures in the Caution Advice and the appellant had sought the justification of listing M/s S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd also with reference to the caution advice in question, the respondents, therefore, will provide clarification to point 1 regarding the basis of including the appellant's company's name in the Caution Advice within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027 Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Reserve Bank of India Reserve Bank of India Deptt of Banking Supervision Deptt of Banking Supervision Central Office, Centre 1 Central Office, Centre 1 Cuffe Parade, Colaba Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai-400005 Mumbai-400005 Shri Sat Pal Singla Kothi No. 94, Sector-6 Panchkula (Haryana)