Information pertaining to certain deposits made in Karur Vysya Bank sought from RBI - PIO: RBI is not a nodal agency for implementation of the RTI Act by other banks - CIC: inform the action taken on the complaint and redressal of appellant's grievance
29 Jan, 2014Information pertaining to certain deposits made in Karur Vysya Bank sought from RBI - PIO: denied information to the appellant stating that RBI is not a nodal agency for the implementation of the RTI Act by other banks and initiation of action is outside the purview of the Act - Appellant: while he was a legal heir of the account holder, the bank was denying the information on the grounds that the appellant was not a nominee - CIC: inform the action taken on the complaint and redressal of the appellant's grievance
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 30.04.2012 seeking information pertaining to certain deposits made in Karur Vysya Bank.
2. The PIO responded on 23.05.2012 and 08.06.2012 and denied information to the appellant stating that RBI is not the nodal agency for implementation of RTI Act and initiation of action is outside the purview of the Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 23.08.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA response is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal on 01.01.2013 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 30.04.2012 and reiterated the contents of the RTI application stating that the appellant was seeking information about a bank deposit in the bank which was mentioned in the RTI application.
5. The appellant stated that the response that the RBI had sent on 23.05.2012 was a cryptic response simply mentioning that the postal order has not been sent and on later date they have received a response from the RBI on 08.06.2012 simply saying that the RBI was not a nodal agency for the implementation of the RTI Act by other banks.
6. The appellant stated that this information sent by RBI was information sent to them without much thought and this is why they have come to the second appeal.
7. The respondent stated that the fact of the matter is that the RBI sent a response to him that the bank referred in the RTI application was not a public authority and the RTI Act was not applicable to that bank. It was elaborated by the respondent that the bank in question was as they understood a private bank though it was a scheduled bank. The respondent stated that in other words that bank was functioning without any government funds and that the funds with such banks are their private funds and such banks are treated as private banks.
8. The respondent further stated that such bank was not a public authority and the RBI not being the implementer of the RTI Act in this case whether the information was being sought by another bank. Hence the response that was given to the appellant was along the line has stated in the letter in context.
9. During the course of the hearing, the appellant further stated that the information that is being sought from the RBI was to get the RBI involved in procuring the information taking into account that while he was a legal heir of the account holder, the bank was denying the information on the grounds that the appellant was not a nominee.
Decision:
10. The respondent is directed to respond to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, about the action taken on the complaint and redressal of the appellant's grievance. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri S.S. Bharat Bhushan v. Reserve Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000328/05692