Vikas Bhasker v. Reserve Bank of India

"Information sought under RTI Act, 2005 Kindly arrange to provide information (documents) for Internet banking login history of my ICICI Banks Account 181501502825 of dated March 19, 2022, March 20, 2022. March 21. 2022 along with le addresses used to login into my aforementioned account on priority basis. Kindly arrange to provide certified records (Mode of Operations etc) of ICICI Banks Central Banking System for ICICI Bank account number 181501502825. Kindly arrange to provide certified information.

Reasoning to File RTI application with Honourable Reserve Bank of India to get the aforementioned information of my aforementioned ICICI Bank account, As per my login records, maintained in diary, of KICI Bank Internet banking login date, time &, login date, time appeared after login to my ICICI bank account, There are discrepancies of date & time of login & previous login history, few login entries that is date & time had been mentioned at which I did not login in my ICICI bank Internet banking system. This is the reason I am filing RTI application with the regulatory & governing authority, RBI to get the same information from the ICICI Bank. Details & Status of the my KIP Bank Saving Account as on dated 29 April 2012, as written below:

(1) Account No: 181501502825

(2) Account Holder Name: Vikas Bhasker Only.

(3) Account Relationship with ICICI Bank: Single (Sole Owner),

(4) Mode of Operation: Single

(5) Account Branch (Home Branch): Nandini Road Branch, Blida' Nagar. Chhattsgarh

(6) Registered Mobile Number. 9826310339" The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.05.2022 stating as under:-

2

certified records (Mode of Operations etc) of ICICI Banks Central Banking System for ICICI Bank account number 181501502825. Kindly arrange to provide certified information. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 09.06.2022 is as under:-

"It is observed that the appellant has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, however he has not preferred the grounds on which he found the reply of the CPIO dissatisfactory vis-à-vis the information sought. In view of the above observations. I do not find any infirmity in the reply given by the CPIO. The role of the Appellate Authority is to see whether the CPIO has acted in conformity with the provision of the RTI Act. Once it is satisfied that the CPIO has discharged his duties in accordance with the mandate of the statute, there is no scope for interference by the Appellate Authority. The appeal is therefore without merit and liable to be dismissed as such".

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not Present.

Respondent: Ms. Rose Saprocho, Assistant Legal Advisor present through Audio- Conference.

The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record. The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 26.05.2022, factual position in the matter has already been informed to the Appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

3

Decision:

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Respondent and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant in his second appeal submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application has been provided to him as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.

In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.

Further, the Appellant is not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुुनुु हािन)

Information Commissioner (सूूचूू ना आयुुुु ) Authenticated true copy

(अिभ मािणत सयािपत ित)

(C.A. Joseph)

Dy. Registrar

011-26179548/ ca.joseph@nic.in

सी. ए. जोसफे, उप-पंजीयक

दनांक /

4