Information regarding reasons for printing the word ‘Mahatma’ & ‘Gandhi’ on Indian currency notes, gazette notifications regarding printing etc. was sought - CIC: the information is not held by the respondents; applicant may approach concerned authority

Facts:

1.The appellant, Shri Soni S. Eramat, submitted RTI application dated 16 March 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding reasons for printing the word ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Gandhi’ on Indian currency notes etc., through a total of 6 points.

2. Vide replies dated 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. March 2013 & 4 April 2013, CPIO furnished denied information on point nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 on the ground of non availability of requested documents in the record and also denied information on point no. 3 on the ground that the appellant had sought opinion which didn’t come within the purview of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 28 April 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 10 June 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also explained the same.

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 he had sought information with respect to the printing of the title of “Mahatama” or name “Gandhi” on Indian currency through 6 points. He wanted the gazette notifications in respect of printing the title, etc. he further stated that he had not been provided on the basis of which the titles/names as stated by him in his RTI request were being printed.

5. The respondents submitted that they do not have the documents sought for by the appellant through the first 5 points of his RTI request in their record and therefore, they were unable to provided the information. With reference to point no. 6, they stated that the question as to when RBI will start printing “Shri Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi” was not covered as information u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI act. The appellant contended that if the RBI has no information they should have transferred his application to the Ministry/Department concerned of the Government of India. The CIC in decision in the case Ketan Kanti Lal Modi Vs. CBEC dated September 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. , 2009 held that a petitioner should under section 6(1) file his RTI application “before the CPIO of the public authority which is the concerned public authority which hold the information within the meaning of Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; of the Act. ” The respondents submitted that the applicant was free to approach the authority concerned which were holders of the information.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission upholds the decision of the respondents as information sought for by the appellant is not available with them. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Soni S. Eramat v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001635/MP