CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi- 110067
Tel No: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000981/SG/14960
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000981/SG
Relevant Facts
Emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Shri Satyendra Mall
Advocate, Diwani Kacheri
Gorakhpur - 273001
Respondent : Mr. A Udgata
CPIO & CGM
Urban Banks Department
Reserve Bank of India
First Floor, Garment House, Worli
Mumbai 400018
RTI Application filed on : 21/05/2010
PIO Replied on : 27/07/2010
First Appeal filed on : 08/10/2010
Order of the FAA : 10/12/2010
Second Appeal filed on : 17/03/2011
Information Sought:
S. No. Information Sought PIO's reply
1. A report on the financial irregularities, misuse of The Reserve Bank of India
the Bank funds and corruption by the holders of had carried out a scrutiny and
the post of Secretary, former directors, present the allegations stand
administrator, District Assistant Registrar, Joint unsubstantiated. Also, the
Registrar etc. at the Municipal Cooperative Bank scrutiny report is such
Ltd. Gorakhpur was sent to the Chief General information which if
Manager of the Bank on 3rd April, 2010. What all disclosed to outsiders can
actions have been taken with regards to the report? seriously affect the workings
of the Bank and the same is
exempted under section 8 (1)
(a) and (e) of the RTI Act,
2005.
2. If no action has been taken on the report so far This information does not
then who is responsible for the same? When will come under the purview of
action be taken against the persons involved in the RTI Act, 2005.
activities of corruption and financial irregularities?
3. When will any action be taken against the officials This information does not
guilty under points 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the said come under the purview of
report? Details regarding the same. the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds of First Appeal
Information sought had not been provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority
No order. The FAA upheld the PIO’s decision. But on analysis by the FAA it was found that PIO
had given an elaborate reply on 27/07/2010.
Grounds of Second Appeal
Information sought has not been provided.
Relevant Facts Emerging during Hearing:
Appellant: Shri Satyendra Mall on Video Conferencing from NIC Studio Gorakhpur
Respondent: Mr. S C Mahanta, Legal Officer on Video Conferencing from NIC Studio Mumbai
The Appellant has sought information about the complaint that he has made against a bank where
he states he is a share holder, he also states that he was also formerly Director of the said bank.
The Respondent has stated that the charges were not found to be true and the details of the enquiry
can not be provided as the information is held by the RBI in a fiduciary capacity. The PIO has also
claimed that disclosure of this information would disclose the commercial confidence of the said
bank and hence exempt under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.
The Appellant being a share holder or a former Director of the said bank has no impact on
the said exemptions and hence the Commission upholds the exemption of the PIO.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the appellant is exempt under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
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
30th September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision mention the complete decision number) (NB)