Rita Hore vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 9 August, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Rita Hore vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 9 August, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.10.2017 and first appeal dated nil:-

Page 1 of 4

Kind attn. for Smt. Mandira Dutta, employee of UCO Bank at Kolkata was at Ballygunge pahari branch from 2014-15.

(1) Kindly intimate from records whether Shri Sujit Kumar Dutta working at Indian Railways Eastern railways zone till April 2014 and now a retiree pensioner of railways and Smt. Mandira Dutta an employee of UCO Bank and their daughter Smt. Nairita Dutta employed at CMC limited from 05.12.2013 till 30.09.2015 and at Tata Consultancy services from 01.10.2015 till 18.05.2016, all residents at 12 Purbachal Road, 3rd lane, PS Garfa, PO Haltu, Kolkata-700078 had filed income tax returns for being salaried professionals till date. Please indicate which years they did not disclose their IT returns from years 1987 and onwards.

(2) Please indicate that if they have ever disclosed any details regarding purchase of gold and any other ornaments from 1987 and onwards and any details receipt of gifts of gold and other ornaments from sources other than their own income, and have they filed due taxes.

(3) Smt. Nairita Dutta had deposed in the court of law that she had Rs 8 lakhs worth of gold and that her father had given Rs 5 lakhs in her marriage in February and March 2014, are these transactions disclosed to the IT department in any returns, by any one of them or together by them on due time.

(4) Please provides records as to whether these acceptance of giving ornaments and cash money, duly corroborated in their IT returns, and if not what action was taken against them.

(5) Are these transactions of acquiring properties duly recorded in their immovable property returns submitted yearly in their offices respectively at Page 2 of 4 railways, UCO bank and at CMC and TCS etc. If they are not ever recorded then actions taken or proposed against them for not truthfully sing their assets may be communicated to me. The matters may be duly checked from Firm 26 AS, form 16 of employer derived from submissions of the employees from time to time.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Head Office, Kolkata seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 02.11.2017. The appellant filed first appeal dated nil. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 16.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO illegally denied the information although the same was sought in public interest.

4. The CPIO denied the information vide letter dated 02.11.2017 by invoking section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the response given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant along with representative Mr. Sandeep Hore and on behalf of the respondent Mr. P.K. Singhal, Chief Manager, United Commercial Bank, Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant's representative submitted that Mrs. Mandira Dutta was his mother-in-law and was an employee of the bank. He stated that his wife had filed a maintenance petition and the disclosure of information would support his stand in the petition pending before family court.

Page 3 of 4

5.2. The respondent submitted that the appellant's representative had indirectly filed an RTI application seeking information, disclosure of which would not serve any larger public interest. Moreover, the applicants such as in this case were attempting to drag public authorities in order to settle their personal matters contrary to the spirit and objective of the RTI Act. The respondent endorsed the order passed by the Appellate Authority which upheld their decision that the information being related to a third party was exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has been given by the respondent vide letters dated 02.11.2017 and 16.11.2017. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. The Commission further agrees with the submissions of the respondent that this forum is neither alternate to other legal forums such as courts to seek redressal of their grievance nor a tool to harass public authorities to achieve their private goals unrelated to public interest. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ाा)) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.08.2019 Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission