1. The appellant, Shri N.A. Razak submitted RTI application dated 14.06.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Financial Services, New Delhi seeking information relating to relief under Agricultural Debt Waiver and debt relief scheme 2008 (Union Budget 2008-09), procedure and conditions stipulated by the Government, which were not adopted by the banks. He had stated that he is entitled for the agricultural debit relief and had submitted all the facts along with records to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India.
2. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, RBI, Mumbai. The CPIO, RBI, Mumbai vide letter dated 02.07.2013 informed the appellant that what was asked was not information in terms of section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 22.07.2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2013 while upholding the decision of the CPIO, recorded that the appellant did not seek any information, rather, he stated his position.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether he is eligible for getting debt relief. The ICICI bank did not provide him the relief under the said scheme of the Government. The respondents reiterated their stand that the appellant did not seek any information, instead he had a grievance that the ICICI bank did not provide him any relief under the agricultural debit relief.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission holds that the appellant did not seek any information from the respondents. The appellant had a grievance against the ICICI bank, for which he may like to approach the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Chennai. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.