Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00828-SM dated 10.07.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 23 April 2009
Appellant : Ms. Kanchan P. Kashalkar
Respondent : Reserve Bank of India
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Unnikrishnan
(ii) Shri Thomas Mathew
The case was heard on 31 March 2009 through video-conferencing.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had sent an application to the CPIO on 10 July 2007
seeking a number of information on the guidelines of the RBI on handling
complaints and about the action taken on two of her appeals. The CPIO
replied on an 30 August 2007 and provided some clarification but denied a
number of information claiming exemption under section 8(1)(e) and (g) of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not content with the reply of the CPIO,
the Appellant preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on 1
October 2007 which that Authority disposed off in his order dated 8 December
2007. The first Appellate Authority endorsed most of the decisions of the
CPIO but also directed him to provide some additional information. Following
this direction, the CPIO sent some more information including a copy of the
office noting to the Appellant along with his letter dated 17 January 2008.
Still not satisfied, he has filed a second appeal in the CIC.
3. During the hearing on 31 March 2009, the Appellant was not present in
spite of notice. She had requested us for adjourning the case to a future
date as she would not be able to come for hearing for some personal reason.
We do not intend to adjourn this case as the Respondent is present. We heard
the submissions of the Respondent and carefully examined the contents of
the appeal. The Respondent had also furnished written comments on the
appeal, which we perused. We note that of the seven items of information
CIC/PB/A/2008/00828-SM
listed in the Appellant’s application, the CPIO has already provided adequate
information/clarification/reasons for denial on all except item number 3,
namely, the name and designation of the officer in the RBI assigned to deal
with her complaints. We do not agree with the argument of the CPIO and the
first Appellate Authority that the name and designation of the officer dealing
with the complaints can be withheld from disclosure under the provision of
Section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This particular
subsection exempts information the disclosure of which would endanger the
life or physical safety of any person. It is not clear how the disclosure of the
name and designation of the officer within the RBI assigned to deal with
these complaints would endanger the life and physical safety of that officer.
At least, neither the CPIO nor the first Appellate Authority has explained in
any detail how the disclosure of the name and designation of the officer
concerned would endanger his life or physical safety.
4. In view of the above, we would like to direct the CPIO to either
communicate within 10 working days from the receipt of this order the name
and designation of the officer dealing with the Appellant’s complaints or if he
chooses not to disclose this information, to provide in greater detail as to
how the provisions of Section 8(1) (g) would be attracted in this case.
5. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
6. 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/PB/A/2008/00828-SM