Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5085
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, Commissioner
Manoj Kumar Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2023/622069
Cheque validity is 90 days per RBI norms; explanations beyond recorded info not disclosable under RTI Act.
Headnote:The complainant sought clarification on cheque validity norms under RBI guidelines issued per Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, effective April 1, 2012, stipulating three months (90 days) from issuance date, leading to dishonor of a cheque issued on 29/08/2022 deposited on 28/11/2022. CPIO provided RBI directive confirming 90-day validity and noted other queries fall outside RTI Act, 2005 definition under S.2(f). FAA directed provision of branch-specific dishonor data if available. Court found CPIO's reply appropriate and timely. Key issue: Whether CPIO's response adequately addressed RTI queries on cheque validity norms and statistics. Ratio: Explanations or interpretations beyond recorded information are not 'information' under RTI Act; RBI norms clearly define 90-day validity, no further disclosure required. Complaint closed with no intervention; CPIO directed to explain hearing absence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti query on cheque validity norms and rbi 90-day rule. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. first appeal and faa directive on data provision. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. commission closes complaint, deems reply adequate. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide exact language for validity of Bank cheque as it is written three month but my cheque has been dishonored on account of outdated/stale when it was valid technically/theoretically/genuinely as per three month. Cheque no. 684175 was deposited on 28/11/2022 at SBI Nanakheda Ujjain bearing issue date 29/08/2022. My complaint to SBI has been disposed off stating that as per bank norms validity is 90 days. Please provide authentic copy of norms whether validity is three months or 90 days, I could have deposited my cheque 2/3 days earlier in case of validity of 90 days. If as per bank norms three months are 90 days then please provide information for one year in terms of days whether it is 365 or 360 days only as per bank norms. Please provide exact date till a cheque will not be stale as per bank norms if issuing date is 15/02/2023. Please provide information for how many cheque has been dishonored on this account only and total charges have been collected so far, since validity of cheque has been changed from six to three months 01/04/2012. Please provide copy of rules/norms/guidelines which are publicly displayed by bank for validity of 90 days.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Guideline and policy in respect of validation of instruments(cheques/drafts/payorders/banker’s cheques) is as under:~
“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank had directed that with effect from April 1, 2012, banks should not make payment of cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s cheques bearing that date or any subsequent date, if they are presented beyond the period of three months from the date of such instrument.”
Seeking other information/explanation is not covered under the definition of information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2023 directed the CPIO to provide the amount and total numbers of such cheque, if the data is readily available for the branch where the appellant holds the account, in case no such data is available then the same may be informed to the appellant within 15 days from the date of this order.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 02.05.2023.
5. The Complainant and the respondent remained absent.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate and timely reply has been provided by the Respondent authority. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
In addition, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation for disregarding the Commission’s notice of hearing by not appearing before the Commission. The written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission both through post and via uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add within 15 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
