Jump to content
jps50

Give audit report: central information commissioner to RBI

Recommended Posts

jps50

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_give-audit-report-central-information-commissioner-to-rbi_1606702

 

DNA 03-11-2011

 

Give audit report: central information commissioner to RBI

Published: Thursday, Nov 3, 2011, 8:00 IST

By Ashutosh Shukla | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA

 

 

Why did your cooperative bank shut down, what action has been taken against those responsible for the collapse, how funds were going to be recovered, you can now get answers to all these queries through the Right to Information Act, 2005.

 

In an order dated November 2, 2011, Central Information Commissioner (CIC) Shailesh Gandhi has asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to part with information related to an investigation done on a cooperative bank, provide its audit report and also give details on all banks that have gone under liquidation, including what action has been taken against the directors for recovery of funds.

 

The order came after a Gujarat resident, Jayantilal Mistry, filed an application seeking the investigation and audit reports of Makarpura Industrial Estate Cooperative Bank Ltd.

 

However, the RBI refused to oblige mainly on two grounds — first, that the information was in fiduciary capacity and, second, that disclosure of such information may harm the interest of the bank and the banking system. The RBI cited two sections that exempt it from providing such information.

 

The central bank said that the disclosure would affect the economic interests of the state as the information sought could shake public faith in the system. It also stated that inspections often bring out the weaknesses in financial institutions, systems and managements of the inspected entities.

 

To back the denial of information, the public information officer provided an order of the full bench by the CIC. The commission, however, stated that the RBI needed to know what kind of fiduciary relationship. Since it was a statutory duty, information should be provided, the commission said.

 

The commission quoted the judgment in the state of UP v/s Raj Narain case: “In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. Their right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate have no repercussion on public security.”

 

Therefore, the commission asked the RBI to provide all the information stating, "The best check on arbitrariness, mistakes and corruption is transparency, which allows thousands of citizens to act as monitors of public interest.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atul Patankar

The said order is attached.

 

The discussion rejecting RBI's contention that the information is received in fiduciary capacity is very good and could be used in other cases too.

RBI ordered to disclose inspection reports.pdf

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Very well justified and progressive decision. Hats off to Shri Shaileshbhai Gandhi.

 

Coop banks have played havoc with poor depositors due to secrecy of RBI and State Coop Dept. I am sure RBI will challenge this decision in HC at public cost to deprive legitimate information to public. In fact timely and strict action by RBI with transparency would have saved many common depositors of coop banks from loss of life time savings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ramakanth b

Wonderful and detailed order. The failure of even big banks like Global Trust Bank is due to the failure of RBI in detecting early signals. Huge amounts are paid to statutory auditors appointed by RBI for auditing, but when the auditors fail in their duty in detecting the sickness of banks, no action is taken against the auditors. Good and timely order by CIC. Appreciate it.

 

ramakanth b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

As expected RBI has challenged this decision in Delhi High Court, which has stayed it till next hearing on 13-02-2012. Stay order is at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=248958&yr=2011

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

W.P.© 8400/2011 and C.M. No.18978/2011

 

 

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA versus MR. JAYANTILAL N.MISTRY

 

Shri Mistry is from Vadodara and member of group of RTI activists of Vadodara [baroda]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Shri Jayantilal Mistry is a very common citizen and he is to now face writ petition at Delhi. He has no means to visit Delhi, stay there and to engage an advocate. There are chances the writ will be decided exparte. [Ye kahani hai diye aur tufan ki].

 

I am trying to get advocate from legal aid committee of HC, if Shri Mistry meets eligibility. I invite members to cogitate on this issue and help him find out some way-out so that writ is properly argued at HC in the interest of RTI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

Will the 'award winning' NGO not help in this noble cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Will the 'award winning' NGO not help in this noble cause?

 

"Award winning NGOs" only want to win awards. They do not help any noble causes !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

At least this can be proved before unsuspecting public, by making an appeal before them, preferably through newspapers, and maybe by e-mails from members of this esteemed portal, who can then report the response (or lack of it) here. Some sort of Gandhigiri seems to be required to shake the NGO's into action, and which better state to start it than Gujarat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Dear Jetley,

 

Can you please contact some advocate in Delhi to defend this important CIC decision and ascertain his fees and other expenses. This will give us a rough estimate of money required.

 

On getting income certificate etc of Mr. Mistry, I will check up his eligibility for free legal aid from Legal Aid Authority at HC of Delhi. In case he is not eligible, a rough estimate will help us garner financial support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jetley

Replied to you on pm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 

W.P.© 1976/2012 and C.M. No. 4266/2012

(for stay)

 

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.T.R.Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate

with Mr.Kuldeep S.Parihar, Mr.H.S. Parihar and Mr.Soumik

Ghosal, Advs.

 

versus

ASHWINI DIXIT ..... Respondent

 

O R D E R

 

10.04.2012

 

 

The CIC has rejected the submission on the ground that no reasons have

been advanced by this Court while granting stay and, therefore, it is

not possible for the commission to ascertain the same. This

observation of the CIC cannot be appreciated in as much as while

granting an ex-parte stay this Court is not obliged to record its

reasons or give justification for the same in every such case. Brief

reason already stand furnished in the initially passed stay orders.

Once a stay order has been passed by the Court all concerned are bound

to obey the same unless it is vacated.

 

 

Since various cases involving the same questions are repeatedly

arising on account of passing of similar orders by the learned CIC, I

direct the learned CIC to adjourn hearing in all such like cases which

involve the disclosure of (i) the inspection reports prepared by the

Reserve Bank of India; (ii) the notings in relation to inspection

proceedings conducted by the Reserve Bank of India; (iii) the board

meetings minutes of the Reserve Bank of India as well as concerned

banks, and correspondence exchanged between the Reserve Bank of India

and the concerned banks."

 

 

PS:

Here is the link to SG's original order

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/132922648/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

As informed by advocate of Shri Jayantibhai Mistry of Vadodara who was pleading his case in HC at Delhi [through Legal Aid Committee of HC], RBI is moving petition to transfer all such cases to SC, since there are nearly 6-7 writs pending in various HCs in India against RBI for audit reports. Next date is 31-08-2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goutamr

jps50 on 08.05.2012 reported the case of shri jayanti bhai mistry of vadodara."next date is 31.08.2012"

plz say about new development if any in this respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      RBI sought exclusion from RTI: Govt. doesnot finance us!
       
      The Right to Information Act (RTI) covers all bodies owned, controlled or ‘substantially financed’ by the government. Which should be clear enough, but the Reserve Bank of India didn’t think so. It sought exclusion from the scanner, contending, “We do not come under the Act, as we are the sole financier of the government; the government does not finance us!”
       
      In response, the Central Information Commission has firmly put the Bank in its place by reminding it that RBI was constituted by an Act of Parliament and was therefore squarely within the law’s purview.
       
       
    • maneesh
      By maneesh
      The question was forwarded to me thourgh Private Message:
      Can RBI seek exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI for information related with Cooperative Banks collected as part of their monitoring?

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy