SAILESWAR CHAKRABARTI Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, Shri Saileswar Chakrabarti submitted RTI application dated 14.05.2014 before the Asstt. Central Public Information Officer (ACPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata seeking information on (a) "the logical conclusion" of the charge sheet of Shri Bhupendra Kumar, CBI DSP in the Mumbai Special Court on Special Case No. 4 of 1995 -RC.II(S)/92 -SCB/CBI/BOM on the basis of inputs reported and all correspondence exchanged with CBI and Ministry of Finance;(b) "logical conclusion" of the MIC's Petition dated 7.9.1998 to the CBI with a copy of the same to the Officer on Special Duty with reference to the order of the said Court on the role of the SCB Senior Management; (c) "the logical conclusion" of (i) MIC's inspection report carried out in the first half of 1992 in the SCB Kolkata Merchant Banking Division and (ii) his inspection report dated 4.9.1991 and (iii) MIC's report dated 30.7.1992 to SCB Group Managing Director in London, following alleged "Larger Conspiracies and custodial, physical and mental tortures inflicted on him" on 27th and 28th July 1992; (d) "logical conclusion" of MIC's report to RBI and CBI copies of which have been provided by the CBI, vide CBI receipt Memo dated 25.09.1998; (e) the copy of the CBI letter dated 28.09.1998 to RBI authorities for furnishing copies of the MIC's correspondence along with the enquiry and action taken reports submitted by the RBI and copies of the same; (f) The RBI's purported action response letter dated 09.10.1998 with all enclosures on the MIC's complaint dated 25.10.1998 to the CBI which RBI reportedly received from the Ministry of Finance; (g) copy of the letter dated 28.7.1994 of Shri B.S.M. Acharya, the then Joint Chief Officer, RBI addressed to MOF relating to (f) confirming veracity, integrity and legality of the contents of the same; (h) the extent and end result of the actual variation of figures in the Balance Sheet and those in Form -X, reported in the Internal Control report dated 4.9.1991 and those reported in the Statesman dated 4.8.1992 in the background of RBI admission that "the Calcutta Office of RBI had carried details of these discrepancies and that the Calcutta Office of RBI had carried out a scrutiny of the books of account of the bank and that the allegations as appeared in the Press were found to be by and large correct.." as per a CBI report made available to the MIC; (i) The status and day to day progress reports of his letters RBI/SC/65, 67 and 68 dated 5.4.2010, 23.11.2010 and 7.12.2010 respectively among many others, following series of orders of the learned Chief CIC, New Delhi; (j) copy of the Memo/Note dated 3.10.2001 of the then DBS General Manager, Shri K. Prasad, after his transfer to Rural Credit Planning Department to the then Calcutta Regional Director, and day to day action and progress report on the same till date; (k) Names of all concerned SCB and RBI officials responsible for alleged willful inaction and deliberately hatching larger conspiracies and tailoring letters with baseless contents, contrary to facts and laws, and putting the same on the mount of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, as illustratively evident in RBI letter DBS(CAL) No. 2771/07.01.16/95 dated 22.2.1995 affecting and obstructing administration of justice; (l) duly certified copies of all documents, supplied by RBI DBS on 29.10.2010 and 1.11.2010 to the MIC simply putting a round RBI stamp only without any initials or full signatures, confirming veracity, integrity and legality of the contents of the same and clearly mentioning the names and designation of the concerned officers and those whose names and designations are missing or illegible; through twelve points.

(2.) THE CPIO, RBI, Mumbai vide letter dated 17.06.2014 informed the complainant that the information sought at point (a), (b), (c), (d) did not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as defined u/s. 2(f) of the RTI Act; in response to points (e) to (k) the respondents informed that the required information was not available; and in response to point (l) the CPIO replied that all the documents supplied to him pursuant to his request had been certified by the bank in the manner that is usually done by it while supplying documents in response to applications received.

(3.) THE complainant has approached the Commission in complaint u/s. 18 of the RTI Act without availing the first appellate channel under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.