Information regarding selling & pledging of the borrowers property by the Axis Bank was denied stating that it was not available - Appellant: RBI should access the information as per section 2(f) - CIC: there is no larger public interest, appeal dismissed
5 Feb, 2015Information regarding selling and pledging of the borrowers property by the Axis Bank was denied stating that it was not available - Appellant: as per section 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; ,it should be accessed by the public authority from the axis bank - CIC: information sought by the appellant does not envisage a situation where the respondent public authority must “access the information relating to a private body under any other law for the time being in force” as mentioned in section 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; there is no larger public interest, appeal dismissed
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri M V Reddy Naidu, submitted RTI application dated 12 June 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding selling and pledging of the borrower M/s Paluri Steels’s property by the Axis Bank etc., through a total of 20 points.
2. Vide reply dated 27 June 2013, the CPIO denied the information on the ground that the information sought for did not form part of the periodical regulatory returns to be submitted by the Bank to them, therefore it was not available with them. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 10 July 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that CPIO concerned had simply denied the information on the ground of nonavailability of information, whereas he should have transferred his RTI application to Axis Bank u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Vide order dated 13 August 2013, the FAA upheld CPIO’s decision.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding the sale proceedings through auction conducted by the AXIS Bank officials of the properties of M/s Paluri Steels. He first approached the AXIX Bank itself for the information but they denied the information on the ground that RTI Act, 2005 was not applicable on them as they were not a public authority as per RTI Act, 2005. Then they approached the RBI for the same information but the CPIO concerned denied the information on the ground of non-availability of the information with them as the information requested did not form part of the periodical returns to be submitted by the Bank to them. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, e approached the FAA but he also did not respond to him properly and upheld the CPIO’s reply only. He appealed before the Commission that the RBI to be directed to transfer the RTI application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the AXIS Bank and collected information should be furnished to him.
5. The respondent submitted that the appellant had sought 20 queries relating to the two accounts in which financial assistance had been given by the AXIS Banks to its two customers. He wanted to know the procedures followed by the AXIX Bank to the sale of the property of the customer under the Securitisation Act. He also stated that the RBI has only the regulatory powers over the Banks under the B R Act, 1949 and they do not collect account wise data from the banks as sought by the appellant in this case. They only collect the mandatory information from the Banks as per the provisions of the B R Act, 2005. They also submitted that they cannot transfer the RTI application of the appellant to the AXIX Bank as it was not a Public Authority for the purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. He also quoted the decision of this Commission given in the case of Sri Rajeev Daiya v. UCO Bank (CIC/PB/2008/00671) decided on 29.10.2009 in which it had been observed that CPIO was expected to provide only such information if it was held by the Public Authority and if the desired information was not available on records of the Public Authority, the CPIO cannot invent it. He also quoted the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), which had observed as follows:
“35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such nonavailable information and then furnish it to an applicant...”
6. In the present matter, the very nature of the information sought by the appellant does not envisage a situation where the respondent public authority must “access the information relating to a private body under any other law for the time being in force”as mentioned in section 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 and then furnish the same to the appellant. The Commission also does not find any larger public interest involved in the present matter as argued by the appellant. Therefore, the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeals are disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri M V Reddy Naidu v. Reserve Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000297