CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Club Building (Near Post Office)

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067

Tel: +91-11-26161796

Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001599/SG/15799

Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001599/SG

Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. P.Gnanasekaran, 6, Vaniar 2 Lane

Nethaji Road,

Madurai - 625001

Respondent : Public Information Officer Reserve Bank of India,

World Trade Centre,

Cuffe Parade, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,

Mumbai -400005

RTI application filed on : 28/12/2010 PIO replied : 24/01/2010 First appeal filed on : 15/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 21/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 30/05/2011

Information Sought:

1. I have sent a complaint dated 25.02.2009 to the Regional Director, RBI, Chennai against the fraudulent activities indulged in by the officials of Vijaya Bank, Madurai and their higher-ups , RET Chennai has forwarded my complaint to HQ of Vijaya Bank Vide letter No DBS (the) Complaints/3084 /03.01.10/2008- 09 dt 12.03.2009. Except forwarding it no follow-up has been taken by RBI, Chennai to dispose of my complaint for nearly two years. The current status of my complaint against Vijaya Bank Officials at Madurai and Bangalore , the details of action taken by RBI , Chennai and remedial steps may informed to me.

2. I have also endorsed a copy of my complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Chennai. He has neither acknowledged nor acted upon it. It may be informed whether looking into private complaints against banks for fraudulent activities is not included in the duties and responsibilities of Bank Ombudsman.

3. The details of officials who functioned as Banking Ombudsmen at RBI Chennai from 1,1.2009 to 30.11.2010 may be furnished

Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):

Your complaint was dealt with by Chennai Regional Office (RO). After careful examination of the contents of the complaint and the comments received from Vijaya Bank in this regard, RO treated the ease as closed at their end on February 4, 2010 as the matter was subjudice.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Information provided is incomplete and irrelevant

Order of the FAA:

FA upheld the decision of the PIO and ordered that under the RTI Act, the appellant can only show how he is aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO to the queries raised by him in the original application and no additional information can be sought. The following observations of the CIC (in G. Srinivasan v. NTPC Limited (Appeal No.lCPB/A-12/CIC /2006 -- Order dated 05-04-2006) are directly applicable to this case:

"At the appellate stage, an appellant cannot ask for additional in formation which had not been sought from the CPIO. In case the appellant seeks additional inform at/on, ha may do so, through a fresh application to the CPIO. Appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits."

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Information provided is incomplete, irrelevant and unsatisfactory.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the information available on the records has been provided. The Appellant appears to be having a grievance that his complaint has not been properly attended to. This is a matter over which the Commission has no jurisdiction.

It also appears that the Appellant has sought information in his first appeal which was not mentioned in the original RTI application. Information required by an appellant must be mentioned in the RTI Application.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information available on the records appears to have been provided.

This decision is announced in open chamber.

Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi

Information Commissioner

21 November 2011

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)