CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001437/SG/15163
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001437/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Veer Sain,
C/o Mr. Deepak Saini,
1344, Barkat Nagar,
Near Gonvind Dev Temple,
Tonk Fatak, Jaipur - 302015,
Rajasthan
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Joshi,
CPIO & General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
Department of Banking Operations and Development,
Central Office, 13th Floor, NCOB,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400001
RTI application filed on : 08/12/2010
PIO replied on : 04/02/2011
First Appeal filed on : 11/02/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 28/03/2011
Second Appeal received on : 18/05/2011
S.No. Information sought Reply of Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1 Please provide a copy of the Executive Memorandum dated
6/07/2009 to give each member of the staff a gold coin as per
platinum jubilee celebrations. How many coins are left after
distribution and how are they going to be used now?
2 Whether the gold purchased from IMF has been transported to
India or held abroad by IMF or any other agency on behalf of the
RBI. If the gold is held abroad, whether any charges are being paid
and if so, what is the charge and paid to whom?
3 What is the amount spent for this year’s Regional Director’s
conference and associated details- names of the participants,
whether spouses were also allowed to travel, major decisions, etc.
4 Who accorded sanction for holding such conference?
5 What is the policy of the bank for personal promotion for all
grades of officers? Copy of the circular for the same may be
provided.
6 Information on conference apart from Regional Director’s
Conference for CGM and any other officers, whether video
Page 1 of 4
conferencing facilities are available, who authorizes them, etc.
7 Please provide information on the actual minimum and maximum No information is available with
lending rates reported by SBI, PNB, HDFC, ICICI, Axis Bank, DBOD.
Kotak Mahindra Bank, HSBC, Standard and Chartered Bank and
Citibank on quarterly basis as on 30th June, 2010and 30th
September, 2010 under circular number DBOD, Dir.
BC/88/13.03.2000/2009-10 dated April 9th, 2010 on base rate.
8 Whether the banks have provided option to the existing borrowers
without charging a fee as provided in the circular by writing to
them or giving them suitable publicity. What steps RBI has taken
to ensure that the existing borrowers have been informed of this
provision and taken benefit of the same.
9 Please provide information on how RBI ensures that the
instructions issued on the interest rates are followed.
10 How does RBI ensures that the instructions on excessive interest
rates are followed by NBFC’s and Urban Cooperative Society.
11 Whether RBI has submitted its reply in the Supreme Court in reply RBI has not filed any reply.
to appeal filed by foreign bank against the decision of the National Supreme Court can be
Consumer Redressal Forum. Provide a copy of the Supreme approached in this regard.
Court’s notice and a copy of the reply.
12 Please reply if RBI officers are allowed telephone connections on
their tables in the office.
13 In the annual report 2009-10, the department wise strength of RBI
as on 31st December 2009 has not been provided. The same is to be
provided.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA agreed with PIO’s decision. However, it directed the PIO to refer query number 7 to Monetary
Policy Department to explore the possibility of availability of the requested information.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
Appellant not satisfied with FAA order. Appellant is aggrieved that the public authority has not provided
a copy of the Supreme Court notice.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on October 11, 2011:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Veer Sain via video conference from NIC Studio- Jaipur;
Respondents: Mr. Abhilash, Assistant Legal Advisor on behalf of Mr. Ashok Joshi, CPIO & General
Manager via video conference from NIC Studio- Mumbai.
“The Appellant stated that information on Query 11 was not provided to him on the basis that
since the matter was in court and the information emanated from there, the Appellant should seek the
information from the court. On the other hand, the PIO relied on the decisions of the Commission in Haja
Najeemuddin v. PIO, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar CIC/AT/A/2006/00321 dated
23/11/2006, Harish Chandru Badekar v. PIO, Supreme Court of India CIC/WB/A/2009/000441 dated
14/07/2010 and Ashok Kumar Mittal v. PIO, State Bank of Patiala CIC/SM/A/2010/000490/AT dated
12/11/2010. ”
Page 2 of 4
The order was reserved at the hearing held on 11/10/2011.
Decision announced on 12 October 2011:
On the basis of verbal submission of the appellant before the Commission, the Appellant is now seeking
information in relation to query 11 only. The information appears to have been denied by the PIO on the
basis that since the matter was in court and the information emanated from there, the Appellant should
seek the information from the said court. Therefore, the Appellant was asked to approach the Supreme
Court of India for the information sought in query 11. This was accepted by the FAA who relied on the
decision of the Commission in Haja Najeemuddin v. PIO, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar
CIC/AT/A/2006/00321 dated 23/11/2006. The Haja Najeemuddin Case has also been relied upon by the
PIO at the hearing held on 11/10/2011 along with the decisions of the Commission in Harish Chandru
Badekar v. PIO, Supreme Court of India CIC/WB/A/2009/000441 dated 14/07/2010 and Ashok Kumar
Mittal v. PIO, State Bank of Patiala CIC/SM/A/2010/000490/AT dated 12/11/2010.
This Bench has perused all the above mentioned decisions. In the Haja Najeemuddin Case, it was
observed as follows:
“10. The sum-total of the facts which emerged during the hearing of the case is that the IVRI
was not a party to the three court cases, in which judgments were passed whose copies
the appellant now seeks from the IVRI. Since these are court judgments, it is for the appellant
to approach the appropriate courts to obtain the copies of those judgments. There is no
reason why anyone else including the parties to those cases, who might come to possess copies
of those judgments, should be obliged under the RTI Act to provide those copies as
‘information’ to the appellant. The request for information has to be addressed to the public
authority legitimately and authorizedly holding that information, which in this case are the
courts of law.
11. A court order is a decision of the court and, as such, it is the court as public authority which
should be construed as holding the information as its custodian. Others including other public
authorities, may come to possess the copies of these orders through their own actions and effort,
but cannot for that reason alone, be said to be the public authority required to act under the RTI
Act. Any applicant for a court order as information under RTI Act, should therefore apply to the
court where the order originated. He cannot seek it from others or other public authorities even
if that public authority has come to possess a copy of that order under any specific condition.”
The decisions of the Commission in Harish Chandru Badekar Case and Ashok Kumar Mittal Case are not
relevant to the present matter as they deal with slightly different issues, which are not relevant to the
present matter.
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the ‘right to information’ as:
“the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any
public authority and includes the right to–
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other
electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any
other device;” (Emphasis added)
Page 3 of 4
Section 2(j) of the RTI Act stipulates that every citizen has the right to access information which is held
by or under the control of any public authority. In other words, if information sought by a citizen is held
by or under the control of public authority, it must be provided to the citizen, subject to the provisions of
Sections 8 and 9 only. The RTI Act does not require the citizen to file an application with only the public
authority who originated the record.
In view of the above, this Bench is of the considered view that the ruling in Haja Najeemuddin Case is
per incuriam inasmuch it was rendered in ignorance of the statutory provisions mentioned above. Given
the same, it is not binding on this Bench. Hence, the PIO’s basis for denial of information is rejected.
In the present matter, if the information sought in query 11 of the RTI Act is held by or under the control
of the Respondent- public authority, it should have been provided to the Appellant, subject only to
Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per records on query 11 to the
Appellant before 05 November 2011.
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
12 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(BK))
Page 4 of 4