Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri R.R. Soudatte vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri R.R. Soudatte vs Reserve Bank Of India on 2 February, 2009
                              Central Information Commission
                    Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00119-SM dated 01.12.2006
                      Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                                                 Dated 02.02.2009

Appellant       :        Shri R.R. Soudatte

Respondent      :        Reserve Bank of India

The Appellant is not present.

On behalf of the Respondent the following are present:-

        (i)     Shri A. Krishna Gopal, Dy. Legal Adviser, RBI
        (ii)    Shri Thomas Mathew, Dy. General Manager

        The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had filed an application before the CPIO on 1 December 2006 seeking
information regarding the non-banking financial organisations in which he had invested in the past
and which were not repaying him. The CPIO, in his reply dated 10 January 2007, provided him
with detailed information regarding those non-banking financial institutions. Not satisfied with the
reply provided by the CPIO, he filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority which that
Authority decided in its order dated 27 March 2007. The first Appellate Authority endorsed the
decision of the CPIO and held that the appeal had no merit as all the information had already
been provided. The Appellant has now approached the Commission in second appeal against the
dismissal of his first appeal.

3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. We perused the
documents enclosed with the appeal and heard the submissions of the Respondent. We note that
the CPIO had given detailed information in respect of each of the non-banking finance
institutions in which the Appellant had claimed to have invested. We do not think that the CPIO
could give any more information than what he has already given. In any case, it is not the
responsibility of the Public Authority under the Right to Information Act to ensure repayment of
the investment made by the Appellant in any financial institution. Hence, this appeal is devoid of
merit. We, therefore, reject it.

4. 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