[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Reserve Bank Of India Through Its ... vs Central Information Commission And Anr on 29 January, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-OS:3198-DB
1/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SALGAONKAR Date: 2026.02.03 18:54:07
+0530
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.246 OF 2023
Reserve Bank of India .. Petitioner
Versus
Central Information Commission & .. Respondents
Anr.
...
Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Counsel with Mr.Prasad Shenoy,
Ms.Aditi Phatak, Ms.Parichenr Zariwalla with Ms.Meghar
More i/b BLAC Co. for the Petitioner.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2026
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.) :-
1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Venkatesh Dhond for
the Petitioner-Reserve Bank of India ("RBI"), which is
aggrieved by a specific observation in the impugned order
passed by the Central Information Commission ("CIC"), New
Delhi on 04/07/2022, when it cautioned RBI-Respondent in
the proceedings before CIC, in the following words :-
"In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view
that as per the provisions of section 6(3) of RTI Act, the RTI
Application can only be transferred to another public authority
comes within the organization wherein in the present case the
information sought pertains to a separate public authority which
does not fall within the respondent organization. The respondent
could have advise the appellant to approach the concerned public
authority instead of transferring the RTI Application by
2/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
themselves. Hence, the respondent has wrongly transferred the
instant RTI Application to the O/o SBI. The Commission cautions
the respondent to be more careful in future while dealing with the
matters related to the RTI Act, 2005."
2. The Petition has impleaded the Central Information
Commission, New Delhi as Respondent No.1 and Mr.Parsuram
Mishra, resident of Uttar Pradesh-the Complainant as
Respondent No.2.
Since the Petition filed by the RBI raise a limited
challenge to the impugned order and has directed the
Complainant-Respondent No.2 to seek appropriate information
from the State Bank of India ("SBI"), we do not deem it
necessary to issue notice to the Respondents.
3. It is not in dispute that RBI is a 'Public Authority' for the
purposes of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "RTI
Act") in terms of Section 2(h) thereof.
RBI discharges its functions under various statutory
legislations, inter alia, being the Banking Regulation Act, 1949,
the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Government
Securities Act, 2006, the Payment and Settlement Systems
Act, 2007, the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 etc..
For the purpose of administrating the provisions in the
statutes and the allied subordinate legislation, RBI has
structured its functioning into distinct Departments.
3/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
In order to adhere to the time-lines stipulated under the
RTI Act in disseminating the requested information, RBI by
issuing a circular, has entrusted the responsibility of
furnishing the information sought to the respective Heads of
the Department ("HOD") and the Circular adopted
decentralised approach and rolled out a procedure for
disposing of the applications received under RTI Act, with a
single Central Public Information Officer ("CPIO") for the Bank
as a whole with an alternate CPIO, all Chief General Managers
(in-Charge) of Central Office Departments, acting as CPIOs and
the other CGMs or senior most General Manager of the
concerned CODs to act as the alternate CPIOs. The procedure
to be followed by the Central Office Departments in
decentralized system was specifically included as part of the
policy adopted by RBI for effective implementation of the
provisions of the RTI Act.
4. It is in this background, Respondent No.2 filed an
application under the RTI Act on 26/05/2020, which was
received by the Consumer Education & Protection Department
("CEPD"), Central Office, RBI and it was allotted a registration
number. Through the said application, Respondent No.2, inter
alia, sought information regarding his complaint
4/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
No.202021320001241 filed before the Consumer Education
and Protection Cell ("CEPC"), RBI, Lucknow against the State
Bank of India.
This application received reply from the CPIO, CEPD vide
letter dated 07/10/2020 i.e. within a period of thirty days from
the receipt of the application. The CPIO provided information
available with it to the Complainant and with respect to
certain other information sought by him in the RTI
application, since in the opinion of the CPIO, the same was
more closely connected with the functioning of SBI, which is
another 'public authority' for the purpose of RTI Act, the
application was transferred to SBI on 07/10/2020 in
accordance with the provision under Section 6(3) of the RTI
Act, so that the available information as sought by Respondent
No.2 could be furnished. Respondent No.2 was informed
accordingly and it was so reflected on the RTI Portal and reply
was dispatched via speed post on 20/10/2020.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication, the
Complainant/Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority of RBI on 17/07/2020 under Section 19 of
the RTI Act, alleging that he has not received any information
from the CPIO within the time line. The copy of the appeal was
5/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
received by RBI on 28/08/2020 and it was registered on the
RTI portal of the Bank as Appeal No.RBINND/A/P/20/00301.
The First Appellate Authority examined the Appeal,
which was filed on the sole ground of non-receipt of RTI
information, and after perusal of the reply, appeal was
dismissed by recording that CPIO had duly replied to the RTI
Application within the prescribed time period from the date of
receipt of the application and the copy of the RTI reply dated
07/10/2020, issued by the CPIO, was furnished to the
Complainant alongwith the order.
6. Dissatisfied with the said order, Respondent No.2 filed
Second Appeal on 21/10/2020 before the CIC, which was
registered as CIC/RBIND/A/2020/136684.
Before the CIC, Respondent No.2 alleged that he had not
received the reply either to his RTI application or to his first
appeal and, therefore, he prayed action against CPIO and the
First Appellate Authority. In addition, he also sought
information, which was sought by him in his RTI application.
The CPIO, CEPD filed its written submissions on
30/06/2022 before the CIC, being supported by all the relevant
documents.
6/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
The appeal being taken up for hearing, the
representative of the CPIO advanced submissions and it was
urged that available information was already provided and the
CPIO had replied to the RTI application within thirty days from
the receipt of the RTI application, and the second appeal was
based on the sole ground of non-receipt of CPIO's reply and the
order of the First Appellate Authority, both of which were
already forwarded to Respondent No.2. It was, therefore,
urged before the CIC that since there was no infirmity on part
of the CPIO or the First Appellate Authority, the appeal should
be dismissed.
7. The CIC passed impugned order on 04/07/2022 and as
already indicated, the grievance of the RBI is only as regards
the relevant observation in paragraph 8, thereby cautioning
the RBI to be careful in future.
The present Writ Petition has raised a challenge to the
observations by the CIC and according to Mr.Dhond, the order
is passed mechanically, without appreciating the provisions of
the RTI Act, and in specific, Sections 2(h) and 6(3) of the RTI
Act, 2005. According to him, on a conjoint reading of the two
provisions, when the information sought is held by or the
subject matter of which is more closely connected with the
7/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
functions of another public authority, the public authority to
which the application is first made, is required to transfer the
same to the other public authority and in the instant case,
since SBI is also a 'Public Authority', which had the
information sought by the Complainant or, since, it was more
closely connected with the subject matter, RBI deemed it
appropriate to transfer the RTI application comprising of the
queries to SBI.
He would rely upon the observations of the Apex Court in
the case of Common Cause Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Ors. 1,
wherein it is held thus :-
"5. As regards the objection that Under Section 6(3) of the Act, the
public authority has to transfer the application to another public
authority if information is not available, the said provision should
also normally be complied with except where the public authority
dealing with the application is not aware as to which other
authority will be the appropriate authority."
He would also invoke the principle of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India
(UOI) & Ors.2, where the Court held thus :-
"9. Section 6(3) of the Act takes care of the apprehension of the
persons for whose cause the Petitioner espouses, by making the
provision pertaining to appropriate competent public authority. On
a careful reading of the same, we do not find that there can be any
difficulty for any person to find out the public authority as there is a
provision for transfer.''
1 (2018) 14 SCC 39
2 (2018) 10 SCC 437
8/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
8. In order to appreciate the arguments canvassed before
us, when we turned our attention to the RTI Act, 2005, we find
that it is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities and it aims
to promote transparency and accountability in the working of
every public authority by constitution of a Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions.
The statute defines 'public authority' in Section 2(h) as
below :-
(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of
self- government established or constituted-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government,
and includes any--
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
Government;
9. 'Right to information' has been assigned a definite
connotation in Section 2(j) of the Act to have the right to
information accessible under the Act, which is held by or
under the control of any public authority and this right include
9/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
the right to inspection of work, documents, records, taking
certified samples of material etc. Section 6 of the Act deals
with the request for obtaining information by a person, who is
desirous of such information and for that purpose, he is
required to forward his request in writing or through
electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language
of the area in which the application is being made,
accompanying such fees as may be prescribed to the
authorities, which are specifically set out in sub-section (1) of
Section 6.
Sub-section (2) of Section 6 makes it clear that the
applicant making request for information shall not be required
to give any reason for requesting the information or any other
personal details except those that may be necessary for
contacting him.
10. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 is what Mr.Dhond relied
upon and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same:-
"(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting
for an information,--
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with
the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer
the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other
public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such
transfer:
10/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-
section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than
five days from the date of receipt of the application."
11. A clear reading of the aforesaid provision, in the wake of
the object of the statute, being to furnish the information
sought by the applicant and the duty cast upon the public
authority to provide such information, which will promote
transparency and accountability in its working would reveal
that, when an application is made to a public authority
requesting for information, but the requisite information is
held by another public authority or the subject matter of which
is more closely connected with the functions of another public
authority, it is open for the first authority to transfer the
application or such part of it to that other public authority and
inform the applicant immediately about such transfer. This
provision is, however, coupled with a rider that the transfer of
an application shall be made as soon as practicable, but in no
case later than five days from the date of its receipt.
12. In the case before us, the information sought by
Respondent No.2 through his application was related to SBI,
and after furnishing the information which was with CPIO, the
request pertaining to SBI Mumbai Metro Circle, it was
transferred to SBI, which is admittedly a public authority and
11/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
that is how the application was disposed of and that was
clearly reflected on the portal in form of 'Action History of RTI
Request'.
13. We do not find any flaw in the mechanism adopted by the
RBI, as we have noted that it adopted the most appropriate
course of action, which was permissible within the four
corners of the RTI Act, 2005, as admittedly RBI was under an
obligation to assist the applicant in securing the information
and the necessary information which was with the CPIO, was
furnished but the other information, being related to the SBI,
the application, in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section
6, was transferred to the SBI, yet another Public Authority.
We find no fault in the RBI adopting the aforesaid
process.
The impugned order passed by the CIC does not dispute
that the applicant had sought information related to SBI and
other issues and, therefore, the same was forwarded to SBI
through CPIO of SBI, by invoking sub-section (3) of Section 6 of
the Act. The Commission also observed that since the RBI was
not the custodian of the information, the requisite information
could not be provided by it, but the CIC found fault with the
RBI, by recording that the RTI application can only be
12/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
transferred to another public authority, which comes 'within
the organization' wherein in the present case, information
sought pertains to a separate public authority, which does not
fall within the respondent organization.
We find that there is no such restriction imposed by sub-
section (3) of Section 6, as the provision is open ended and it
prescribes that any public authority, may transfer the
application to any other public authority, provided the
transferring authority is of the view that the information
sought is held by another public authority or the subject
matter of which is more closely connected with the functions
of another public authority.
The CIC has attempted to read something into the
statute, which is not provided for, and the CIC has attempted to
constrict the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 6, by
restricting it to only the public authority which comes 'within
the organization' and not a separate public authority, which
according to us, is neither the intention of the statute nor does
it serve the purpose of transfer of the application, as
contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act.
The CIC ought to have adopted a broad approach, as
ultimately the Complainant/Respondent No.2 was guided to a
13/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
proper forum, and in any case, the application filed by him
involved the information relating to the SBI and, therefore, the
RBI has rightly transferred the application by taking recourse
to sub-section (3) of Section 6 to the CPIO of SBI.
It is completely erroneous on part of the CIC to observe
that RBI could have advised the applicant to approach the
concerned public authority, instead of transferring the RTI
application itself.
According to us, the restrained approach of CIC, defeat
the whole purpose of sub-section (3) of Section 6, and if the
said provision is to be construed in the light of the object of the
Act, being to provide necessary information sought for from a
public authority, to ensure transparency and accountability in
the working of every public authority, according to us, it would
defeat the aim and purpose, as Complainant/Applicant would
suffer, as the application would be rejected and he would be
asked to seek the information from the other public authority.
Whereas the RBI appropriately directed Respondent No.2 to
another 'public authority', which was in possession of the
relevant information, and since, the RBI felt that the
information is closely connected with the SBI.
14/14 25 WP-246-23.odt
Ultimately, the CIC also directed the Complainant to
approach the concerned CPIO, O/o State Bank of India to
receive the desired information for redressal of his grievance,
and we find that the CIC has also adopted a practical approach
and we do not find that there is any illegality committed by RBI
in transferring the application of Respondent No.2 to CPIO,
SBI.
In the wake of the aforesaid, we allow the Writ Petition by
setting aside the observations made by the CIC in paragraph 8
of its order dated 04/07/2022, cautioning the Reserve Bank of
India, being unjustified.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
