Appellant requested for a copy of the RBI’s letter vide which amalgamation of Bank of Rajasthan with ICICI Bank was approved u/s Section 44 (4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; no transfer of sponsorship permitted - CIC: request upheld

Information regarding report of the internal working group on RRBs was sought - Appellant: The Bank of Rajasthan has incorrectly permitted its amalgamation with ICICI Bank as the Bank of Rajasthan also happened to be the sponsor of Mewar Aanchalik Bank and there is no provision of transferring sponsorship form one sponsor bank to another - Appellant: provide a attested copy of the RBI’s letter dated 12 August 2010; vide which said amalgamation was approved u/s Section 44 (4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - CIC: request upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri Kuldeep Samar, submitted RTI application dated 9 April 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding report of the internal working group on RRBs given under the chairmanship of Shri A. V. Sardesai, Executive Director, RBI etc., through a total of 4 points.

2. Vide reply 23 April 2013 & 6 May 2013, CPIO furnished information on point nos. 1 & 2; denied information on point no. 3 on the ground of non availability of the requested information. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 20 May 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been provided incomplete information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 2 July 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision on point nos. 1, 3 & 4 and directed the CPIO, DBOD to provide order dated 12,8.2010 to the appellant again.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today. The appellant stated that the was satisfied with the reply given to point 1 of the request which related to the certified copy of the report of the Internal Working Group but he added that the ICICI bank has more than 50 % of FDI. The Bank of Rajasthan has incorrectly permitted its amalgamation with ICICI BANK. The Bank of Rajasthan also happened to be the sponsor of Mewar Aanchalik Bank and there is no provision of transferring sponsorship form one sponsor bank to another. The RBI has given approval for such amalgamation. The appellant sought attested copy of the RBI’s letter dated 12 August 2010; vide which said amalgamation was approved u/s Section 44 (4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. He added that no information has been provided in the points 3 of the RTI application.

5. The CPIO agreed to provide an attested copy of letter dated August 12, 2012. He stated that in point 3, the information sought is not specific and they had no correspondence with NABARD in the matter. He added that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyaya (Civil appeal 6454/2011 dated 9 August 2011) has observed that where information sought was not a part of record of a public authority and where such information was not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulations of public authority, RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon public authority to collect or collate such nonavailable information and then furnish it to an applicant.

Decision Notice

6. The CPIO is directed to provide attested copy of the RBI’s letter dated 12 August 2010, as sought by the appellant. The information is to be provided within 7 days of receiving the CIC’s order.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Kuldeep Samar v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001418/MP