Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01104-SM dated 29-12-2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 27 August 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Abdekahar Muzaffar Quazi,
Mahdibagh Colony, Dr. Ambedkar PO,
Near Railway Crossing Fly Over Bridge,
Mahdi Bagh Colony Road, Nagpur.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Reserve Bank of India,
D/o Administration & Personnel
Management, Central Office,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present
(i) Shri. Unnikrishnan, Legal Advisor (Law),
(ii) Shri. Ravindran.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated December 29,
2007, requested the CPIO for the authentic/certified copy of the guidelines
regarding the security arrangements for all the Banks, both nationalised and
private, for the installation of ATM booths/points at various localities
outside the Branch premises, specifically regarding the safety measures to
be adopted and followed by all the Banks. The CPIO replied on February 18,
2008 and denied the information claiming exemption from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (a) and (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied
with this reply, he had moved the Appellate Authority on March 4, 2008. The
Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated May 21, 2008 and
dismissed it by endorsing the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has
CIC/PB/A/2008/01104-SM
challenged this order in his second appeal to the CIC.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not
present in the Nagpur studio of the NIC in spite of notice. The Respondent
was present in the Mumbai studio. He reiterated the arguments offered by
the CPIO that the disclosure of this information would jeopardise the safety
of the ATMs and would have an adverse impact on the economic interests of
the country. Indeed, the RBI cannot be expected to make public the various
safety and security instructions it might have issued from time to time for
the safe installation and maintenance of ATMs as this may expose the ATMs
to the risk of breach of safety in the hands of antisocial elements. This
could not be in the economic interests of the state as envisaged in Section 8
(1) (a) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, we uphold the
decision of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority in denying the information.
4. The case is, thus, disposed off.
5. 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/2008/01104-SM