Appellant: conflicting reply by RBI; first said that they do not have the information, but informed that forms of 36,894 clients connected with the ICICI were damaged in the floods of July 2005 - PIO: nobody has been punished - CIC: order upheld
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 24.2.2012 seeking more information and clarifications on earlier RTI applications. The CPIO responded pointwise on 27.3.2012.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.4.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA, while generally upholding the reply of CPIO on 18.6.2012, directed the CPIO to make a decision of the letter dated 24.3.2011, if not already taken, and issue a suitable reply to the appellant within 15 days. The appellant approached the Commission on 20.9.2012 in second appeal.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 24.2.2012 and stated that his focus presently is on the wrong information given by the RBI and he wanted to know what action the RBI has taken against the CPIO. The appellant said that the CPIO should have been penalized for providing wrong information. The appellant said that he had wanted to know in a previous application about the number of clients connected with the ICICI whose documents had been damaged in the floods of July 2005.
5. The respondent stated that he does not have information about the punishment, but he does know that the present application has arisen from an earlier RTI application in which the appellant had wanted to know about the number of ICICI customers whose documents had to be replaced.
6. The appellant stated that the RBI had given a confusing reply. In the first instance, the RBI said that they do not have the information, but subsequently in context of another RTI application by him, he was given the information that 36,894 forms were damaged.
7. The respondent said that he does not know about the exchange of information in respect of what the appellant is saying and that the information which he has, pertains to what the ICICI had informed in a letter dated 12.9.2006 which was forwarded to the appellant in which the figure of 36,894 had been cited pertaining to the forms. The respondent said that whether the figure of 36,894 relates to forms or to the clients, is a matter of detail.
8. The appellant stated that the general understanding is that one form corresponds to one client and reiterated that he wants to know whether the RBI has punished anyone in this regard.
9. The respondent stated that as far as he knew, nobody has been punished because whatever information had been received from the ICICI was conveyed to the appellant. The respondent further stated if there is any further clarification that will be provided.
10. The respondent has responded appropriately to the RTI application, and no further action is required in the matter.
11. The order of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
Citation: Dr. Terence Nazareth v. Reserve Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000526/04891