Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001907
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 24 September 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri S.N. Bukht,
402, Hira Villa Apartments,
3, Pali Road, Bandra (W),
Mumbai 400 050.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Reserve Bank of India,
Department of Personnel & Management,
Central Office,
Amar Building, P.M. Marg,
Mumbai 400 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Joseph, Dy. Legal Advisor, was
present.
2. We heard this case through videoconferencing. Both the parties were
present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions. In the
main, the Appellant had wanted to know about the findings of the investigation
which the RBI had conducted into the affairs of the Memon Cooperative Bank.
The CPIO had denied that information by citing the exemption provision
contained in Section 8(1) (a) and (e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The
Appellate Authority had endorsed the decision of the CPIO and had cited the
full bench decision of the CIC in the RR Patel vs RBI case in support. In that
decision, the CIC had held that the reports of the RBI inspectors on various
banks and financial institutions are not to be disclosed being exempt under
Section 8(1) (a) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
3. In the present case, the Appellant has not asked for the copy of the
CIC/SM/A/2010/001907
inspection report of this particular bank; he has only asked for its main findings.
In this particular case, the Appellant has submitted that the RBI had imposed a
total ban on withdrawals from this bank and this decision had affected hundreds
of thousands of customers of the bank. He contended that a decision which
impacted such a large number of citizens could not be completely held back by
claiming exemption under the above provision. He further submitted that the
RBI should at least place in the public domain some information about the
reasons for its decision in respect of this bank.
4. In response, the Respondents argued that disclosing the main findings
of the inspection report would be like disclosing the inspection report itself and
would have the same impact. They submitted that the disclosure of their
findings could adversely affect the functioning of the bank and its stability and
would not be in the economic interest of the country. They further informed the
CIC that this particular bank was presently in the process of getting merged in
the Bank of Baroda and the disclosure of such information might affect the
merger.
5. After carefully considering the submissions of both the parties and
keeping the decision of the Full Bench in the above matter, we are of the
opinion that even if the RBI should not disclose the inspection report in its
entirety, it should place in the public domain in an appropriate manner the
summary of the findings and recommendations for the sake of transparency
and, most importantly, to keep the customers of the bank concerned suitably
informed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to forward to the Appellant within 15
working days from the receipt of this order a summary of the inspection report
of this particular bank without revealing those particular aspects the disclosure
of which would be detrimental to the economic interests of the state. However,
if it is felt that not even the summary of the inspection report as directed above
CIC/SM/A/2010/001907
can be disclosed without affecting the economic interests of the state, the CPIO
shall inform the Appellant accordingly in a sworn affidavit within the same
period.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001907