FAA: Section 22 of RTI Act did not override Section 45 NB of RBI Act which is a special law relating to specialized information in respect of an NBFC, collected under a special enactment - CIC did not comment on it; inspection report is exempt u/s 8(1)(e)

Inspection report of a company carried out by RBI was denied u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;   - Appellant: Company is contesting the decision of RBI to decline its Registration as NBFC  - CIC: information is held in fiduciary capacity, appeal rejected

FAA: Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of RTI Act did not override Section 45 NB of RBI Act which is a special law relating to specialized information in respect of an NBFC, collected under a special enactment - CIC did not comment on it

ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri S. Ramu submitted RTI application dated 17.10.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai seeking information relating to copy of inspection report carried out on 1.12.2012, 12.12.2012, 13.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 by officials of Department of Non-Banking Supervision, RBI, Chennai on Mayava Finance Pvt. Ltd., Valparai (TN).

2. The CPIO acknowledged the RTI application vide letter dated 24.10.2013. Thereafter the CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 18.11.2013. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 16.12.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2014 while upholding the decision of the CPIO, held that as per Section 45NB of RBI Act information collected through inspection has to be treated as confidential and not to be disclosed. Further, Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act did not override Section 45 NB of RBI Act. Section 45NB of the RBI Act is a special law relating to specialized information in respect of an NBFC, collected under a special enactment being the RBI Act.

3. Thereafter the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant did not attend the hearing in spite of a written notice of hearing having been sent to him. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant stated that he is a team member of the said Company, who is contesting before the appellate authority, Ministry of Finance against the decision of RBI who declined grant of Certificate of Registration as non-banking financial company (NBFC) to M/s. Mayava Finance Pvt. Ltd. The respondents reiterated their stand.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission holds that the inspection report of RBI conducted on M/s Mayava Finance Pvt. Ltd., a non banking financial company (NBFC), is held by the respondent in fiduciary capacity and is exempt u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri S. Ramu v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001258