RTI Judgement Series: When 1,500 files out of 2,000 are stolen in Delhi

The PIO admitted that out of the 2,000 tehbazaris in the City Zone in Delhi, 1,500 files have been stolen. The CIC directed the PIO to publish a list of tehbazaris and file a police complaint. This is the 195th in a series of important RTI judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of City Zone and Civil Zone at Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to give complete list of tehbazaris indicating the files which have been stolen and also publish the list on MCD website.

 

During the hearing before the CIC under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the PIO admitted that out of the 2,000 tehbazaris in the City Zone, 1,500 files have been stolen.

 

While giving the judgement on 14 September 2009, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, "About 1,500 files have been stolen. This is indeed a scandalous state of affairs. The two PIOs of City Zone and Civil Line are directed to give the complete list of tehbazaris indicating the files which have been stolen to the Appellant before 30 September 2009. These lists will also be displayed on the website of MCD."

 

Delhi resident, JD Kataria, on 18 March 2009, sought from the PIO information regarding tehbazaris/hawking in Delhi.

 

He wanted to know...

1. How many tehbazaris were allotted between 1990 and 2009 and asked the list of the same

 

2. To whom it was allotted, whether any inspection was carried out before allotting tehbazaris, whether the original allottee still owns the tehbazaris, whether any order has been issued to tehbazaris owners to fix shutter in their shops and copy of the same order with the name of the authority who issued such order, details of the action taken by the tehbazaris owners on the order, whether any shop owners has been challaned, details of space allotted by Corporation, whether the allottee stills owns the same space, whether the Corporation has floated any draw and if any officer was present there, if so then name and designation of the officer, copy of the report of the draw, details of the raid which was conducted in February 2009 with details of seized goods, revenue generated by the Govt., whether any officers inform the shop owners about the raid to be conducted, name of the zone inspector and RC with the details of time since they had been appointment, whether they have not been transferred due to any political connections, details of their residence, whether they resides in private accommodation or given by the Corporation, details of action taken by the department on tehbazaris with the report and whether any shop owners can rent out to others

 

The PIO on 27 May 2009 transferred Kataria's RTI application to superintendent engineer at City Zone. Since, the applicant did not receive any information from the PIO, he filed his first appeal.

 

In his order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO (SE/City Zone) and AC (City Zone) to provide the information to Kataria within 15 days.

 

However, no information was provided by the PIO. Citing non-compliance of FAA's order by the PIO, the appellant then approached the CIC with his second appeal.

 

During the hearing the Bench of Mr Gandhi, noted that the appellant had filed RTI application enquiring about the number of tehbazaris on Hamilton Road in Kashmere Gate. He had also asked for other queries regarding this.

 

However, since Kataria, the appellant, did not make the payment properly, he was asked to pay cash as application fee, which he did on 22 May 2009. After receiving the fee, The PIO of City Zone transferred the application on 27 May 2009 to the Civil Line zone since the roads fall in Civil Line Zone.

 

The PIO RP Aggarwal admitted that there were about 2,000 tehbazaris in the City Zone. About 1,500 files have been stolen.

 

Mr Gandhi said, "This was indeed a scandalous state of affairs."

 

While allowing the appeal, the Bench directed the PIOs of City Zone and Civil Zone to put up a list of all the tehbazaris on the website of the MCD indicating whether the files are available or stolen. Mr Gandhi also asked the PIOs to file a police complaint for the theft of the missing files.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001770 & 1780/4793

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-14092009-19.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001770

 

Appellant                                            : JD Kataria

                                                            Delhi - 110006.

 

Respondent 1                                     : Public Information Officer &

                                                            Superintending Engineer

                                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                            O/o the SE, City Zone,

                                                            MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali Road,

                                                            New Delhi - 110002

 

Respondent 2                                     : Public Information Officer &

                                                            Assistant Commissioner

                                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi

                                                            O/o the AC, City Zone,

                                                            MLUG Car Parking, Asaf Ali Road,

                                                            New Delhi - 110002

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

RTI Judgement Series: Bank’s Employees Welfare Trust declared as public authority

The CIC while declaring the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust as a public authority asked it to appoint a PIO and FAA. This is the 194th in a series of important RTI judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the chairman of Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) and a First Appellate Authority, as mandated under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Bench also dismissed the contention of the PIO of Bank of Maharashtra that the Trust is managed by an 'independent' board of trustees which has the entire custody, management and control of the Trust funds.

 

While giving the judgement on 12 March 2012, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, "The Executive Director of the Bank, who is a government appointee is the Chairman of the Trust. The Bench can only assume that such officials must necessarily be acting on behalf of the Bank-when they are required to take executive decisions as members of the board of the Trust for the welfare of the Bank's employees. It is also true that significant funding is provided to the Trust by the Respondent-public authority. If the argument of the PIO is accepted, it would necessarily imply a conflict of interest and be an improper slur on the integrity of the Bank officials."

 

Pune resident, Prakash Ranade, on 18 September 2011, sought from the PIO information regarding the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust. Here is the information he sought...

 

1. Copy of the constitution of the welfare trust;

2. List of the places where the Holiday Homes for staff members are provided as of April 2011;

3. The agreement copies of the Holiday home owners/hotels that have arrangement with bank for years April 2010-to March 2011 with full terms and conditions;

4. The procedure followed while selection of particular property for Holiday Homes and their renewals after expiry of agreed terms;

5. Inform Names of selection committee members. The details of expenses for their visits to renew/fresh lease etc during the years April 2010 to March 2011 paid by Bank through welfare fund;

6. Total payment made to each Holiday Homes for the financial year and 2010-2011.

 

Denying the information, the PIO stated, "Information sought is related to the Trust which is a separate legal entity. Hence, information cannot be provided."

 

Ranade, citing unsatisfactory information provided by PIO filed his first appeal. In his order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) said, "I have gone through the contention of the appellant & reply by CPIO and I find that the said "Welfare Trust" is a registered Trust. It is managed by an independent Board of Trustees which has the entire custody, management and control of the Trust funds. I therefore agree with CPIO that the trust is a separate legal entity and uphold the decision of CPIO."

 

Dissatisfied with FAA's order, Ranade then approached the CIC with his second appeal.

 

During the hearing on 13 February 2012 before the Bench of Mr Gandhi, the appellant stated that the Trust receives a sum of about Rs8 to Rs10 crore from the public authority Bank. "Further, the Executive Director of the Bank is the ex-officio head of the Trust. Moreover, other members of the Trust are employees of the Bank," He said. The CPIO did not deny the said statements and was therefore asked to send his written submissions via email. The Bench then decided to reserve its order.

 

During the next hearing on 12 March 2012, Mr Gandhi said both the parties had sent their submissions. "At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the PIO has stated that the Trust is a separate legal entity, registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune. Therefore, based on the submissions and arguments of the parties, the issue framed by this Bench is whether the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act," he said.

 

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a 'public authority' stipulates as follows:

 

"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;" (emphasis added)

 

The Bench said, "From a plain reading of the above, it appears that the Trust is not covered under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (ii) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the issue which is to be determined is whether the Trust is a body owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government."

 

Ranade, the appellant has inter alia mentioned in his submissions that at the hearing held on 13 February 2012, the PIO have already submitted that the Bank had provided substantial funds to the tune of Rs90 to Rs100 crore to the Trust since 1999. In this regard, the PIO has submitted that the amount contributed by the Bank to the Trust since its inception in 1999 is Rs50.80 crore. "Though the term 'financed' is qualified by 'substantial', Section 2(h) of the RTI Act does not lay down what actually constitutes 'substantial financing'. It is akin to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value' and would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case," the Bench noted.

 

"In the instant case," Mr Gandhi said, "a contribution or grant of Rs50.80 crore given by the Bank from its corpus of public funds cannot be considered as insignificant. This would render the Trust as being 'substantially financed' indirectly by Government funds. Citizens have a right to know about the manner, extent and purpose for which public funds are being deployed by the Government or its agencies. Having said so, not every financing of an entity in the form of a contribution or grant by the Government or its instrumentalities (such as the Bank) would qualify as 'substantial'-but certainly a grant of over Rs1 crore would constitute 'substantial financing' rendering such entity a public authority under the RTI Act."

 

Ranade, the Appellant had further submitted that the Trust was run by the executives of the Bank as ex-officio members and by staff members as representatives. The PIO stated that the Trust is a separate legal entity, registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune under Registration NoE-2935-Pune. The location of the registered office of the Trust is-'Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005'. In addition, the PIO submitted that the Trust is managed by an independent board of trustees which has the entire custody, management and control of the Trust funds. The PIO also provided the details of the officials of the Bank who are the trustees of the said trust.

 

Mr Gandhi said, "…the Bench is of the view that mere registration with a Government/statutory authority does not in itself render an entity a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. Therefore, the Trust does not appear to be 'owned' by the appropriate Government. As regards being 'controlled' by the appropriate Government, the said term has not been defined under the RTI Act. There are various forms in which the Government exercises control over an entity, which is relevant in determining whether the latter is a public authority."

 

The PIO had stated that the Trust is managed by an 'independent' board of trustees which has the entire custody, management and control of the Trust funds. However, Mr Gandhi said, "The Bench is of the view that such a claim is untenable. It is difficult to assume that senior officials of the Bank can constitute the entire board of trustees in an independent capacity where the Trust itself has been set up for the welfare of the Bank employees."

 

Mr Gandhi said, "The RTI Act does not specify 'complete control' in Section 2(h). As per P Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon (2nd Ed., Reprint 2007 at p. 410), the term 'control' means- 'power to check or restrain; superintendence; management…’. It appears that the presence of senior Bank officials especially the Executive Director who is a public servant on the board of trustees may check or ensure that decisions taken in the Trust are in consonance with its avowed objectives i.e. promoting the welfare of the Bank's employees. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the Bank officers exercise a significant degree of control on the decisions of the Trust."

 

Based on the reasons, the Bench ruled that the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

 

While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi directed the Chairman of the Trust to appoint a PIO and FAA as mandated under the RTI Act before 15 April 2012. "The PIO so appointed shall provide the complete information as per records in relation to the RTI application dated 18 September 2011 to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act," the Bench said.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003688/17641

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_003688_17641_M_77983.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003688

 

 

Appellant                                          : Prakash Ranade,                                                                      

                                                          Pune-411030

 

Respondent                                        : Ajay Banerjee,

                                                            CPIO & CGM

                                                            Bank of Maharashtra,

                                                            Planning Department,

                                                            H.O.: Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar,

                                                            Pune-411005

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

RTI Judgement Series: PIO of RBI asked to provide info on StanChart Bank

The CIC said if there are irregularities in the functioning of StanChart Bank, including any regulatory lapses, citizens have a right to know about it. This is the 193rd in a series of important RTI judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) and chief general manager of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to provide copies of the findings, recordings, enquiry reports, directive orders, file notings and/ or any information on the investigations conducted by the central bank against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) in respect of non-compliance by the Bank of RBI's instruction on derivatives. 

 

The PIO had refused to disclosed the information under Sections 8(1)(d), Section 8(1)(A) and (e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.   

 

While giving the judgement on 9 January 2012, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, "If there are certain irregularities in the working and functioning of such banks and institutions, the citizens certainly have a right to know about the same. The CIC does not believe there is any merit in the argument that disclosure of information about non-compliance of regulatory norms by SCB and action taken thereon by RBI can have any impact on the economy of India."

 

Colaba, Mumbai resident, KP Muralidharan Nair from Indian Sugar Exim Corp, on 19 May 2011, sought from the PIO information regarding complaints received against SCB and action taken by RBI. Here is the information he sought and the reply provided by the PIO...

 

1. What contraventions and violations were made by SCB in respect of non-compliance of RBI instructions on derivatives, for which RBI has imposed penalty of INR 10 lakhs on SCB in exercise of its powers vested under Section 47A(1)(b) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and as stated in the RBI press release dated April 26, 2011issued by Department of Communication, RBI

PIO's Reply—The bank was penalised along with 18 other banks for contravention of various instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of derivatives, such as, failure to carry out due diligence in regard to suitability of products to users not having risk management policies and not verifying the underlying/adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under past performance route. The information is also available on our web site under press release.

 

2. Please provide us the copies/details of all the complaints filed with RBI against SCB, accusing SCB of mis-selling derivative products, failure to carry out due diligence in regard to suitability of products, not verifying the underlying/adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under past performance and various other non-compliance of RBI Instructions on derivatives.

Also, please provide the above information in prescribed format.     

PIO's Reply—Complaints are received by Reserve Bank of India and as they constitute third party information, the information requested by cannot be disclosed in terms section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005.

 

3. Please provide us the copies of all the written replies/correspondences made by SCB with RBI and the recordings of all the oral submissions made by SCB to defend and explain the violations/contraventions made by SCB.       

PIO's Reply—The action has been taken against the bank based on the findings of the Annual Financial Inspection (AFI) of the bank which is conducted under the provisions of Sec 35 of the BR act 1949. The findings of the inspection are confidential in nature intended specifically for the supervised entities and for corrective action by them. The information is received by us in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the economic interest of the state. As such the information cannot b disclosed in terms of Section 8(1)(A) and (e) of the RTI Act 2005

 

4. Please provide us the details/copies of the findings, recordings, enquiry reports, directive orders, file notings and/or any information on the investigations conducted by RBI against SCB in respect of non-compliance by SCB in respect of non-compliance of RBI instruction on derivatives. Also, please provide the above information in prescribed format.      

PIO's Reply—Same as above.

 

Citing incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO, the applicant filed his first appeal. However, there was no mention of any order passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

 

Muralidharan Nair, the appellant, then approached the CIC with his second appeal.

 

During the hearing before the Bench of Mr Gandhi, the PIO of RBI claimed that information on query 2 was exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and information sought in queries 3 and 4 was exempt under Sections 8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI Act.

 

The appellant stated that this Bench, in a number of decisions, had ruled that the information sought, as that in the present matter, must be disclosed under the RTI Act.

 

The PIO submitted that as regards some of these decisions, a stay has been obtained from the relevant High Court(s). The Bench noted that these stay orders were specific and apply only to the specific order of the Commission sought to be stayed.

 

Whether information sought in query 2 is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure—"information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information".

 

Mr Gandhi said, "In order to claim the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the PIO must establish that disclosure of the information sought, which may include commercial or trade secrets, intellectual property or similar information, would result in harming the competitive position of a third party. As per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, the burden of establishing the applicability of the exemption lies on the PIO."

 

He observed that in the query 2, the appellant had sought copies and details of all the complaints filed with RBI against SCB accusing SCB of mis-selling derivative products, failure to carry out due diligence in regard to suitability of products, not verifying the adequacy of underlying and eligible limits under past performance and various other non-compliance of RBI instructions on derivatives.

 

The PIO argued that the complaints are received by RBI and as they constitute third party information, the information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

 

Mr Gandhi said, "It appears that the PIO is arguing that disclosure of information regarding complaints received from third parties would harm the competitive position of the third party. This Bench is unable to appreciate how disclosure of complaints made against SCB would harm the competitive position of the person/entity making these complaints. Moreover, the PIO has not even clarified the nature/identity of the third party. Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act states that 'In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.' The PIO has not justified this denial claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (d). Therefore, the denial of information on query 2 on the basis of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is rejected."

 

Whether information sought in queries 3 and 4 is exempt under Sections 8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI Act.

 

The Bench noted that in queries 3 and 4, the appellant has sought copies of all the written replies/ correspondences made by SCB with RBI and the recordings of all the oral submissions made by SCB to defend and explain the violations/ contraventions made by SCB. The appellant has also sought details/ copies of the findings, recordings, enquiry reports, directive orders, file notings and/ or any information on the investigations conducted by RBI against SCB in respect of non-compliance by the bank of central bank's instruction on derivatives.

 

The PIO stated that action against SCB has been taken based on the findings of the Annual Financial Inspection (AFI) of SCB, which is conducted under the provisions of Section 35 of the BR Act 1949. "The findings of the inspection are confidential in nature intended specifically for the supervised entities and for corrective action by them. The information is received by RBI in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the economic interest of the state. Therefore, the information sought cannot be disclosed in terms of Sections 8(1)(a) and (e) of the RTI Act," the PIO said.

 

Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act

Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act exempts "information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence".

 

Mr Gandhi said, "It is unlikely that disclosure of information sought in queries 3 and 4 would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic or scientific interests of the state, or relation with foreign State, or lead to incitement of an offence. Hence it must be examined whether the economic interests of the state are likely to be prejudicially affected by disclosure of the information. The information sought is copies of all the written replies/ correspondences made by SCB with RBI, recordings of oral submissions made by SCB to defend and explain the violations/contraventions made by it, details/ copies of the findings, recordings, enquiry reports, directive orders, file notings and/ or any information on the investigations conducted by RBI against SCB in respect of non-compliance by SCB."

 

He said, "This Bench is unable to understand how disclosing this information would affect the economic interests of the state. Financial stability of a nation cannot lie solely on public confidence in banks/ financial institutions, and certainly not where banks/ financial institutions holding public funds are involved in irregularities. The submissions of the PIO appear to suggest that the banking system and the economic state of this Nation are extremely fragile and therefore, the information should not be disclosed.

 

Section 8(2) of the RTI Act

Section 8(2) of the RTI Act states, "Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests".

 

Mr Gandhi observed that the RBI is a regulatory authority which is responsible for inter alia monitoring subordinate banks and institutions. "Needless to state significant amounts of public funds are kept with such banks and institutions. Therefore, it is only logical that the public has a right to know about the functioning and working of such entities including any lapses in regulatory compliances. If there are certain irregularities in the working and functioning of such banks and institutions, the citizens certainly have a right to know about the same. The best check on arbitrariness, mistakes and corruption is transparency, which allows thousands of citizens to act as monitors of public interest. A nation's economic interests lie in the robustness of its Institutions and weeding out of the bad ones. There must be transparency as regards such organisations so that citizens can make an informed choice about them. In view of the same, this Bench is of the considered opinion that even if the information sought in queries 3 and 4 was exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, as claimed by the Respondent, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act would mandate disclosure of the information sought," he said.

 

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure "information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information".

 

Mr Gandhi reiterated the definition of a fiduciary relationship. "An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship," he said.

 

"In the instant case," the Bench said, "while the correspondence exchanged between RBI and SCB may have been maintained in a confidential manner, there does not appear to be any duty case upon RBI to act in benefit of SCB. In fact, both- correspondence exchanged as well as recordings of submissions by RBI are likely to be in the course of inspection of SCB carried out by RBI under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act. When RBI carries out inspection of banks under Section 35 of the BR Act, it does so in a regulatory/ monitoring capacity. The information provided to RBI by the Bank is clearly in discharge of statutory obligations. Therefore, there does not appear to be a creation of any fiduciary relationship between RBI and SCB."

 

Mr Gandhi said, "Citizens have a right to know about the working of banking companies including any regulatory lapses. If there are irregularities in the functioning of SCB including any regulatory lapses which may be reflected in the information sought in queries 3 and 4, citizens certainly have a right to know about the same. A larger public interest would be served by disclosing this information- under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. This Bench is of the considered opinion that even if the information sought in queries 3 and 4 was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as claimed by the Respondent, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act would mandate disclosure of the information sought. "

 

While allowing the appeal, the CIC then directed the PIO to provide complete information as per records to KP Muralidharan Nair before 5 February 2012.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002841/16732

http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2011_002841_16732_M_73736.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002841

 

Appellant                                        : KP Muralidharan Nair,

                                                            Indian Sugar Exim Corporation,

                                                            Colaba, Mumbai - 400 001

                                                                       

Respondent                                     : Dr N Krishna Mohan

                                                            PIO & Chief General Manager,

                                                           Reserve Bank of India,

                                                            Dept. of Banking Supervision,

                                                          Central Office, Centre - I,

                                                          Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai - 400005

Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

online financial advisory
Pathbreakers
Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
online financia advisory
The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Online Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
financial magazines online
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
financial magazines in india
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)