Central Information Commission

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

CIC/MP/A/2015/001955 3