JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No.3474/2020 by which the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for reimbursement of an amount of Rs.5,99,000/- which was put on hold by the respondent Bank (appellant herein) was directed to be refunded/reimbursed to the petitioner after it was found by the Ld. Single Judge that the petitioner had duly informed about the fraudulent transaction of the aforesaid amount to the Bank in time which, however, was not prevented by the Bank as can be seen from the records. 3. The pleaded facts of the case of the petitioner before the Ld. Single Judge, in brief, were that the petitioner is an account holder of the State Bank of India having a Saving Bank Account bearing No.30086063911 in Six Mile Branch of the Bank. The Bank requested the petitioner to submit his KYC document for updating his records which was duly submitted by the petitioner on 29.03.2019. As there were certain discrepancies as regards the date of birth of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted the new PAN Card with correct date of birth and requested the Bank for making necessary correction. It was on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a bulk SMS wherein it was stated that there was certain discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner in his Account which needed correction and was provided with a link for sharing certain information over the said link. The petitioner bonafide believing that the said SMS was in relation to the query made by the Bank, clicked the link provided in the bulk SMS and filled the necessary details. However, no sensitive information like password etc. was shared. Subsequently, at 12.30 pm of the same day on 01.11.2019, the petitioner received a call from a person to provide correct details and also the user ID, which were accordingly shared but no passwords were shared. Subsequently, again at 13:15:24 and 13:18:17 the petitioner received two messages wherein it was mentioned that amounts of Rs.99,000/-and Rs.5,00,000/-were debited from the account of the petitioner by way of internet banking though according to the petitioner, he did not make any such transactions. 4. Subsequently, again at 13:15:24 and 13:18:17 the petitioner received two messages wherein it was mentioned that amounts of Rs.99,000/-and Rs.5,00,000/-were debited from the account of the petitioner by way of internet banking though according to the petitioner, he did not make any such transactions. 4. Being alarmed, the petitioner immediately submitted a complaint before the Branch Manager of the Bank informing about the said fraudulent transactions and to do the needful. The petitioner also filed an F.I.R. on the same day before the Dispur Police Station about the aforesaid incident. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued the matter with the Bank authorities and a complaint was also filed before the Banking Ombudsmen on 27.01.2020 which, however, was not entertained by the Banking Ombudsmen. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, LHO, GS Road seeking certain information relating to the aforesaid transaction. 6. On the basis of such application filed by the petitioner, the following information were communicated to the petitioner by the SBI authorities Sl. No. Information sought Reply 1 Copy of the complaint dated 01.11.2019 filed against Fraudulent Transactions on 01.11.2019 submitted by Nikita Agarwal, daughter of the applicant at SBI, Six Mile Branch Copy of the complaint dated 01.11.2019 filed against Fraudulent Transactions on 01.11.2019 submitted by Nikita Agarwal, daughter in law of the applicant at SBI, Six Mile Branch enclosed. 2. Date and time of the Blocking the above referred account An amount of Rs.5,99,000/-(Rupees five lakh ninety nine thousand) was blocked on 01.11.2019. At present there is no provision in Bank system for capturing the time of non financial transaction. The hold transaction is a non financial transaction. 3. List of OPT/SMS sent by Bank on 01.11.2019 to the account holder The list of OTP/SMS sent by Bank on 01.11.2019 is enclosed as Annexure-I 4. Details of actions taken by the Bank after the complaint dated 01.11.2019 (a) An amount of Rs.5,99,000/- (Rupees Five lakh ninety nine thousand only) was put on hold on 01.11.2019 in the SB account number 30086063911 immediately after the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank. (b) Internet Banking was deactivated on 01.11.2019 5. Action taken report on the complaint Ticket No.”5942551632” The complaint against Ticket No.5842554632 is under process. 7. (b) Internet Banking was deactivated on 01.11.2019 5. Action taken report on the complaint Ticket No.”5942551632” The complaint against Ticket No.5842554632 is under process. 7. According to the petitioner, from the reply given by the Bank, it is very clear that the petitioner had duly informed the Bank about the fraudulent transaction and the Bank had itself put on hold the aforesaid amount and immediately after the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent herein, submits that the aforesaid reply would show that the said amount of Rs.5,99,000/- were put on hold on 01.11.2019 in the SB Account immediately after fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank. 9. In view of above, it can be stated that the Bank authorities acknowledge that the aforesaid amount was fraudulently debited from the petitioner’s Account after the matter was brought to the notice of the Bank and as such, the petitioner would be liable to the reimbursed with the aforesaid amount in terms of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India which provides, inter-alia, as follows “7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transactions in the following cases : (i) In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.” 10. Having failed to obtain positive response from the Bank for reimbursement in terms of aforesaid Clause 7(i) of the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No.3474/2020. 11. The Ld. Single Judge after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the relevant facts and position as reflected in the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer of the Bank and also on failure of the Bank authorities to specifically deny the fraudulent transaction after the same being reported by the Bank in their affidavit-in-opposition allowed the writ petition with the direction to refund/reimburse the amount of Rs.5,99,000/-to the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner maintained in the said branch bearing Saving Account No.30086063911. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has submitted that unfortunately, the information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Bank was not correct inasmuch as the fraudulent transaction occurred before the petitioner informed the Bank authorities. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank has tried to bring to the notice of this Court the copy of the Account Statement which is found annexed at Annexure 5 (Page 53). 13. We have gone through said Bank Statement in respect of the aforesaid account for the period 1st November, 2019 to 1st November, 2019. 14. Certainly, the Statement indicates debiting of the aforesaid amount of Rs.99,000/-as well as Rs.5,00,000/-from the aforesaid account of the petitioner on 01.11.2019 with reference to transactions Nos.108697088528IG AHIVWQG3 TRANSFER TO 4 and 108697093249IG AHIVXFP2 TRANSFER TO 4. However, the said transactions do not indicate the timing when the said amounts were debited. It was incumbent upon the Bank authorities to have come with clear evidence that the aforesaid transactions actually took place before the petitioner notified the Bank about such unauthorized transaction. The fact remains that the aforesaid amounts were debited from the Account of the petitioner on 01.11.2019 which has been also admitted by the Bank. But the Bank could not show us that these were debited before the account was put on hold. 15. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant/Bank submits that the aforesaid reply given by the Bank was wrongly construed to mean that the said amounts were fraudulently debited after the Bank was notified. He submits that the RTI reply given was wrongly construed by the petitioner and also accepted by the Ld. Single Judge that the aforesaid amount was debited after the information was given by the petitioner as the fact remains that it was earlier withdrawn before the Bank received the complaint from the petitioner. 16. However, the said stand of the appellant does not appear to be supported by the language used in the RTI reply. The RTI reply as mentioned is very categorical in informing the petitioner that the amount of Rs.5,99,000/-was put on hold on 01.11.2019 in SB account number 30086063911 immediately after the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank. Thus, the submission advanced before this Court is contrary to the categorical statement made in the RTI reply. 17. The RTI reply as mentioned is very categorical in informing the petitioner that the amount of Rs.5,99,000/-was put on hold on 01.11.2019 in SB account number 30086063911 immediately after the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank. Thus, the submission advanced before this Court is contrary to the categorical statement made in the RTI reply. 17. If we accept the plea of the appellant at this stage that the amounts were fraudulently debited before the fraudulent transaction was brought to the notice of the Bank, it would amount to re-writing the reply given by the Bank in their RTI reply which, in our opinion, would not be permissible. 18. It is not the case of the appellant/Bank that the information was incorrectly given. The stand before us is that it was wrongly misunderstood by the petitioner as well as the Ld. Single Judge which stand we are not able to accept in the face of the specific categorical statement made by the Bank in the said RTI reply. Thus, if the said submission of the Bank is to be taken as correct, in our view, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Clause 7(i) of the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India referred to above. 19. Under the circumstances, we do not find any material to interfere with the order of the Ld. Single Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.