Niranjan Chattopadhyay vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 December, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Niranjan Chattopadhyay vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03.10.2018and first appeal dated 24.11.2018:-

(a) "In regard to Saving Bank account being No. **********7909 in the name of "PEARL DROP APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION FUND" is lying at BOB, Charu Market Branch, 9, D.P.SASMAL Road, Kolkata - 700033, West Bengal?

Yes/No. If yes, which year the said account is open? Documents require opening the said account? Supply the authenticated copies of the said document.

(b) At that point of time, how many person/people jointly operated the said account?

Page 1 of 8

(c) Do you know, after reconstitution of the executive committee, the said account is operated by three people/person namely Dr. Indranil Mukherjee (President), Arunava Dasgupta (Secretary) and Abhijit Dasgupta (Treasurer) jointly? Yes/No.

(d) Do you know the said account is operated jointly as a cheque signing authority on the basis of the resolution adopted in the general meeting of the said association? If yes, supply the authenticated copy of the said document.

(e) Do you know the copy of the memorandum of association is lying with you? If yes, please supply the authenticated copy of the said document.

(f) Let me know that on the basis of which document, Branch Manager and/or officers of Charu Market Branch have allowed the aforesaid person to operate the said account single instead of jointly as a cheque signing authority? Supply me the authenticated copy of the said document.

(g) Do you know that in this regard no resolution adopted by the members of the said association? No general meeting of the said association held and no approval accorded? Yes or No? If yes, how your officer allowed them to operate the said account single instead of jointly? If your reply is no, do you think that the said officer/officers violate the rules and regulation of the bank?

(h) Do you know as per West Bengal Apartment Owners Association Act 1973 that Bank account of any association is to be operated as a cheque signing authority by Secretary, President and Treasurer jointly? Yes/No.

(i) Do you know recent amendment of the said act that cheque signing authority shall be vested on President and Treasurer jointly? Yes/No.

(j) Do you know that the said association have not prepared/adopted any memorandum of association in respect of the maintenance of common area? Yes/No.

(k) Do you know that a resolution adopted and ratified by the members of the association, that the aforesaid association shall run as per the West Bengal Apartment ownership act 1973 and the said resolution along with the memorandum of association was submitted/filed to the said branch at the time of opening the said Page 2 of 8 saving bank account in the name of "PEARL DROP APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION FUND". If yes, please supply me the copies of the authenticated document.

(l) Do you know that reconstitution of the executive committee held in the month of December 2016? Yes/No.

(m) Let me know that why your officers are allowing Abhijit Dasgupta to withdraw the deposit from the fund of the association? In this regard I have already intimated your branch manager through e-mail and letter dated 16.06.2018 that he is neither treasurer nor a member of the present executive committee? No steps/action have been taken in respect of my said letter? If any action is taken, please supply me the said authenticated document.

(n) Do you know that I have sent an application on 30.08.2018 in respect of the aforesaid subject to the Branch Manager, of the said branch and received the same on 01.09.2018 along with requisite fees of Rs. 10/- by IPO being No. 23F 156532. At that time I have no knowledge that he is not a PIO. In this regard, I do hope, as per RTI Act 2005 under Sec. 6 sub sec. 3 (i) & (b), the Branch Manager as a public authority shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant for such transfer. Provided that the transfer of an application is pursuant to this subsection shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of the receipt of the application."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.10.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 21.12.2018 disposed of the first appeal.

Page 3 of 8

Aggrieved bythe same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 10.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.10.2018 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(a) "Yes, this account was opened at Charu Market Branch on 17.05.2010. The required documents for opening the account were submitted as under:

i. Resolution of the association dated 02.05.2010.

ii. Driving license and BSNL bill of Mr. Subir Kumar Sett.

iii. PAN card & CESC bill of Mr. Niranjan Chattopadhyay.

iv. PAN card & CESC bill of Mr. Abhijit Das Gupta Copy available with branch.

(b) Three, as per mandate dated 02.05.2010.

(c) The information sought for is vague as you have not specified the date of re-

constitution resolution. Further it is an interrogatory nature question which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, vide resolution submitted to branch Dr. Indranil Mukherjee (President) Arunava Dasgupta (Secretary) and Abhijit Dasgupta (Treasurer) were jointly mandated to operate the account.

(d) The information sought for is vague as you have not specified the date of resolution. Further, it is an interrogatory nature question which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the Act. Hence cannot be Page 4 of 8 commented. However, vide resolution submitted to branch the mandate was given for jointly operation by any two.

(e) The information sought for is vague as you have not specified the detail of memorandum of association. Further, it is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2(f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, as per records available with branch no memorandum has been submitted by the association to the branch.

(f) As per records available with branch the captioned account was never allowed to be operated single.

(g) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, as the captioned account was never allowed to be operated single, this is not applicable.

(h) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority regarding the laws which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented.

(i) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority regarding the laws which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented.

(j) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented.

Page 5 of 8

(k) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, as per records available with branch no memorandum has been submitted by the association to the branch.

(l) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, as per records available with branch no such resolution has been submitted by the association to the branch.

(m) As per records available with Charu Market Branch, no such letter was received.

Only an email dated 29.09.2018 was received by branch. However, email also did not provide copy of resolution. Hence operation was continued as per previously submitted resolution with branch.

(n) This is an interrogatory nature question and addressed to personal opinion and knowledge of the authority which is not covered under the definition of information as defined u/s 2 (f) of the Act. Hence cannot be commented. However, as per information available with branch records no such letter was received by Charu Market Branch".

The FAA vide order dated 21.12.2018 stated that point-wise reply had already been provided to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Govinda Vishwas, CPIO, Shri Deepak, Chief Manager, Shri Dinesh, Sr. Manager (Law), Bank of Baroda, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was not satisfactory. He further stated that reply given by the respondent was incorrect, incomplete and misleading. He argued most of the information sought were denied by the respondent by taking shelter of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. He expressed his desire Page 6 of 8 to inspect all the records related to account of Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 29.10.2018. They informed that in response of the appellant's another RTI application, they had sought consent in writing under section 11 of the RTI application from the account holder (Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund). However, they did not receive any instruction from Pearl Drop Apartment Owners Association Fund. They stated that the appellant was not authorized signatory and despite that information available with them had been given to him. It was further stated that since in the RTI application, the appellant had not requested for inspection of the records of the said account, therefore, his request of inspection could not be accepted.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 29.10.2018. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that most of the queries were in the form of questions which may not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Moreover, as per the records, the appellant was not an authorized signatory of the aforesaid account and he also failed to establish any larger public interest warranting disclosure of such information. The commission finds no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. There appears be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 23.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) उपपंजीयक) Dy. Registrar ( 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

BANK OF BARODA KOLKATA METRO REGIONAL OFFICE, BARODA TOWER, PLOT NO.

38/2, BLOCK G.N. (4TH FLOOR), SEC. - V, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA - 700 091 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA, KOLKATA METRO REGIONAL OFFICE, BARODA TOWER, PLOT NO. 38/2, BLOCK G.N. (4TH FLOOR), SEC. - V,SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA - 700 091 SH. NIRANJAN CHATTOPADHYAY Page 8 of 8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission