Information regarding date of receipt of his book for award, whether it was sent for evaluation, etc. - Respondent: Book was received after the last date & could not be considered - CIC: Provide complete reply & clarification about the typographical error

O R D E R

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.10.2017 and first appeal dated 01.01,2018:-

(i) Whether the appellant’s book was received in time and sent for evaluation for award. If so, provide the documents and comments of evaluator as well as department/ section. Send ATR on that.

(ii) Whether the book is still with the office and could not be sent for evaluation or kept for next evaluation nor book was not found suitable for putting it in process of award. If so, the reason may be provided.

(iii) How many total books were received for award, how many of these were found suitable to send these to evaluator/ referees and how many were found suitable for award- give complete list with book and author name?

(iv) Whether your next year/ session award scheme is in process, would you like to keep the book for next award or this type of books is not fit for your award scheme.

(v) Application form for next session award (vogue) may be send. If it is not presently available it may be send latter on. In case advertisement is released send a copy of that along with designated Performa.

(vi) Since the policy of GOI is to award the author of Hindi books whether you will like to release award every year, if it is not yet in your Dept. will you like to star it so that every year award may be given to Hindi author? Certified copies of all note sheets, correspondences, page created, rules, regulation and norm may please be provided immediately.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.10.2017under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 27.10..2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 01.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 18.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 18.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2017 gave point-wise reply to the RTI application. The FAA did not pass any order. 5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kazi Mohd. Isha, General Manager, Rajbasha, Reserve Bank of India and Shri Jeet Pathak, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra, attended the hearing through the audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that in order to encourage original writing and research in Banking Hindi, Reserve Bank of India had launched an award scheme for outstanding writings in the field of Banking Hindi. Under this scheme, working/retired Professors (including Assistant and Associates, etc.) of Indian Universities may be awarded three prizes of Rs. 1,25,000.00 each for writing books originally in Hindi on Economics/Banking/ Financial subjects. He stated that he also sent his books, however, the same was not considered. Hence, he sought information regarding date of receiving of his books, whether his book was sent for evaluation, book was found suitable for award and if no, reasons for the same etc. However, no satisfactory response was received from the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while endorsing their reply inter alia submitted that they had already furnished point-wise information to the appellant vide their letter dated 15.11.2017. They further informed that information sought on point nos. 4 to 6 of the RTI application was available on their website also provided web-link. They informed that the appellant’s book was received in the month of June 2017 and the last date for the award of 2015-2016 was 31.10.2016. Hence, it could not be included for the award scheme in 2015-2016. They further stated that due to typographical error in the CPIO’s reply against point no. 1 of the RTI application, the last date of accepting entries was inadvertently mentioned as 31.10.2017 instead of 31.10.2016 (the actual last date). They informed that subsequently the appellant sent his book for the award for the next year, however, the Selection Committee did not find the book suitable for award.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had furnished point -wise reply to the RTI application vide letter dated 17.11.2017. During the course of hearing the respondent informed that there was a typographical error in the reply given against point No. 1 of the RTI application which had not been clarified to the appellant. Moreover, perusal of the record reveals that reply given by the CPIO is incomplete. Hence, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information/reply and also provide clarification about the typographical error happened on point no. 1 of the RTI application, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Sadachari Singh Tomar v. Reserve Bank of India in Second Appeal No.CIC/RBIND/A/2018/146119, Date of order: 14.09.2020