SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 4748

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, Commissioner
B Premkumar – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2023/119914



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Shri Karan Pandey

CPIO's point-wise RTI reply citing Ombudsman Scheme satisfies obligations absent complainant rebuttal.

Headnote:The complainant sought details under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the handling of prior complaints against bank officials under S.4 and S.2(f), including procedures, opportunities for hearing, and documents relied upon. The Central Public Information Officer provided point-wise responses citing the RBI Ombudsman Scheme 2021 and attached relevant records. The First Appellate Authority directed resending the reply with enclosures. The Commission found the CPIO's response compliant with the RTI Act provisions. Key issues included adequacy of information on complaint processing, adherence to RBI procedures, and provision of records under S.2(f). The ratio decidendi holds that point-wise replies addressing queries with references to applicable schemes and documents satisfy RTI obligations, absent complainant rebuttal. The Commission closed the complaint, finding no grounds for intervention.

Table of Content
1. details of rti queries on prior complaints and cpio responses (Para 1 , 2)
2. first appeal and complaint proceedings (Para 3 , 4)
3. hearing, submissions, and complaint closure (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

ORDER

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “I had filed 2 complaints against the BM Trichy road Coimbatore and RM Coimbatore but received partial incomplete reply with regard to one on the BM Trichy road Coimbatore and the one on the RM Coimbatore is totally neglected.

A) Reason why my complaint on the RM Coimbatore was not entertained or accepted.

B) Was any clarification / doubts communicated or raised before the decision being taken... if yes please provide me a copy of the same.

C) Was the complainant / me provided an opportunity to explain or brief the complaint ... if yes please provide a copy of the same or if no please provide the reason.

D) Please inform if your rules and procedure does not provide an opportunity to the complainant of being heard before arriving at a decision ... please provide a copy of the same.

E) Please provide a copy of the rules and procedure as defined in sec 4 of the Act followed by RBI to resolve a complaint received.

F) Please confirm if all the rules and procedure were followed before arriving at the decision in my complaint.

(ii) Please provide the following Information with respect to your reply above referred:

A) Was the complainant / me provided an opportunity to explain or brief the complaint ...if yes please provide a copy of the same or if no please provide the reason.

B) Has all the grievances “tabulated” in my complaint addressed if not addressed please provide a reason for the same.

C) Please provide a certified copy of “all” the documents / information as defined in Sec 2(f) Of RTI Act ( includes email etc...) with foot noting “send and received” as available on your file / records with regard to my complaint above referred, send and received from a) The accused / Central Bank of India and B) the Complainant / me,

D) Please mention the documents / information's relied upon by the officer to arrive a the decision ... with a certified copy of the information available like e-mails etc... as defined in sec.2(f) of RTI Act detailed in foot note:

E) Please provide the sections and sub sections & rules and procedure of Bankers general lien applied in this / my case with a certified copy of the same. ( Mainly with regard to a) debiting form another joint account, b) Without issuing any communication / information/ notice to borrower, c) Without issuing any communication / information/ notice to the joint account holders of the other account, d) Applicability on OD Against FD. e) Reason the FD whose current value was much more than the dues not debited before laying hands on another account f) reason why no reasons was quoted by the bank even when sought in written form and in RTI Act, etc.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i: A) This information is not available with us.

B) No.

C) Complaints are dealt under RBI Ombudsman Scheme 2021. Details containing the rules and procedures is available at https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/RBIOS2021 121121.pdf.

D) As above. E) As above.

F) Yes.

ii: A) Please refer to query 1(C)

B) The complaint has been processed as per the Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021.

C) Copy attached.

D) Please refer to query 2(C)

E) Reserve Bank of India has advised banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, loan recovery policy etc. prepared and duly vetted by their Boards of Directors. Banks are required to take decisions based on Board approved policies and broad regulatory guidelines as well as the statutory provisions, etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top