The document is an order from the Central Information Commission regarding an appeal filed by Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash against the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Prakash had sought information from RBI regarding reservation details and promotion policies for a private bank, which RBI said it did not have. The Commission upheld RBI's response, noting that public authorities are only required to provide information they hold, not compile new information. The Commission dismissed the appeal, reiterating that RTI does not require authorities to collect or create non-available information.
The document is an order from the Central Information Commission regarding an appeal filed by Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash against the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Prakash had sought information from RBI regarding reservation details and promotion policies for a private bank, which RBI said it did not have. The Commission upheld RBI's response, noting that public authorities are only required to provide information they hold, not compile new information. The Commission dismissed the appeal, reiterating that RTI does not require authorities to collect or create non-available information.
The document is an order from the Central Information Commission regarding an appeal filed by Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash against the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Prakash had sought information from RBI regarding reservation details and promotion policies for a private bank, which RBI said it did not have. The Commission upheld RBI's response, noting that public authorities are only required to provide information they hold, not compile new information. The Commission dismissed the appeal, reiterating that RTI does not require authorities to collect or create non-available information.
The document is an order from the Central Information Commission regarding an appeal filed by Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash against the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Prakash had sought information from RBI regarding reservation details and promotion policies for a private bank, which RBI said it did not have. The Commission upheld RBI's response, noting that public authorities are only required to provide information they hold, not compile new information. The Commission dismissed the appeal, reiterating that RTI does not require authorities to collect or create non-available information.
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001955
Appellant : Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash, Kanyakumari
Public Authority : Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : 01.08.2016
Date of Decision : 05.08.2016
Present: : Appellant : Not present Respondent : Ms. Aradhana Ohri, Legal Officer and Shri Sudesh Kachaekar, Manager – through VC RTI application : 07.05.2015 CPIO’s reply : 20.05.2015 First appeal : 12.06.2015 FAA’s order : 21.07.2015 Second appeal : 05.08.2015
Information : Manjula Prasher
Commissioner
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash, asked for information pertaining to
details of reservation in percentage/numbers in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., during
new recruitment of clerks through online exams, seeking the promotion policy terms and
conditions for sub-staff category employees to clerical cadre, number of sub-staff
promoted to clerical cadre through merit and seniority channel, etc., during the years
2011-2014.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by the appellant was
not available with their department. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first
CIC/MP/A/2015/001955 1 appellate authority (FAA) stating that information sought should be provided. The FAA
upheld the CPIO’s decision. Aggrieved with the decision of the FAA, the appellant came
in appeal before the Commission reiterating that information sought should be provided.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present despite
a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondents stated that they could not
obtain the information as sought by the appellant from the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Ltd. as it did not fall within their regulatory sphere; the RBI was only concerned with
core banking policies as also enshrined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The
respondents stated that a public authority is expected to provide only that information
which it holds. The RTI Act, 2005, does not mandate a public authority to compile or
create information for replying to the appellant and referred to CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, dated 09.08.2011, in which the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the “35…The RTI Act provides access to all
information that is available and existing…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 non available information and then furnish it to an applicant.” The
appellant was not present to indicate any shortcoming in the response provided by the
respondents.
CIC/MP/A/2015/001955 2 4. In view of the foregoing, the Commission observes that the respondents have
appropriately responded to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, upholds the
decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy Secretary & Dy Registrar Tele No. 011-26105027
Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority
Reserve Bank of India Reserve Bank of India RIA Division, Central Office RIA Division, Central Office Amar Building, P.M. Road Amar Building, P.M. Road Fort, Mumbai Fort, Mumbai
Shri Lazer Jeya Prakash
6, Peter Residency North Street, Neyyoor Kanyakumari-629802
