Information about Bank frauds - CIC: Under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information; The adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint
28 Dec, 2022ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
- The name of the accounts and name of their proprietors or partners or directors and addresses of parties involved therein
- Day today progress of the frauds filed by the bank from time to time
- Fraud report for FMR and flash report is sent to the regional office / the central office of RBI, detail with account
- The FMR contains details such as fraud number, name of party, amount involved, nature of fraud
- Modus operandi and brief details submitted by the Bank concerned to the RBI in the form of flash reports as per RBI master guidelines on fraud
- Details of internal investigation reports with detailed communication on investigation report informed by all concerned bank
- Detiail of DO letter address by all concerned bank to CGM incharge RBI central office Mumbai
- Name of staff officials involved in fraud within all concerned branch and action taken against details
- Details to provide by all concerned bank to Financial intelligence unit
- All other relevant information
2. The CPIO had denied the information as sought by the applicant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA upheld CPIOs reply and dismissed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal and complaint before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The applicant did not attend the hearing despite being served the hearing notice. The respondent Shri Vivek Mittal, CPIO/ Manager attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submission vide letter dated 09.12.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 04.07.2021, they have already informed the applicant that the information sought is not available with the respondent public authority. Hence, they have provided a relevant reply to both the RTI applications well within reasonable time period as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the applicant in both the above RTI applications had mentioned about the alleged frauds reported by nationalized banks in Maharashtra, Jalgao District, during April 2020 to June 2020 and had requested the CPIO to furnish information namely, names of the accounts/ their proprietors/ partners/ directors etc. It has been observed that the CPIO had already informed the applicant that no frauds had been reported by Nationalised Banks in their branches in Jalgaon District during the said time period. Hence, the requested information is not available with RBI.
7. In file no. CIC/RBIND/C/2021/635757, this Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
“30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other....”
8. In view of the above, in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/635732, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent had already provided a categorical reply to the appellant. Hence, the reply given by the respondent vide their letter dated 04.07.2021 is in order and same is being upheld by the Commission. In file no. CIC/RBIND/C/2021/635757, the Commission is of the view that prima facie, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint and there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal and complaint is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Anand Ramesh Awasarmal v. Reserve Bank of India, Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2021/635757; 12-12-2022