Gobind Prasad Khetan vs Bank Of Baroda on 14 June, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Gobind Prasad Khetan vs Bank Of Baroda on 14 June, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.11.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.05.2017 and first appeal dated 10.07.2017:-

Page 1 of 5

१. ई. ा वै ू ४०,००० पे ड बाई संजीव कुमार जैन सिटिफकेट सं. IN-

JH01109405279750एन इशू डे ट ०२-०३-२०१५ अकाउं ट रे े रस NONACC(BK)/JHBOBBK02/GIRIDIH/JH-GR.

२. फ पाट गोिबंद साद खे तान सेकंड पाट संजीव कुमार जैन िजसका रे े रस से तारीख ०६-०५-२०१५ को ई. ा इशू आ है िजसका रे फाइड सिटिफकेट सं.

IN-JH01423871439415N ा ू टी . ४०,०००/- पेड बाई सिचन कुमार इसके सेकंड पाट का नाम सं जीव कुमार जैन के जगह सिचन कुमार कर िदया गया है I

३. िनवेदन है िक रे िफकेशन िकस िनयम के अनुसार नाम बदली िकया है I इशु टोकन एवं ई. ा म ा फक है , िकस िनयम के तहत नाम बदलने की ि या बनाई गयी है ? आशा है अितशी ज़वाब दे ने की कृपा करगे I

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda Giridih Branch seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 17.06.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.07.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 21.08.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 07.11.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.11.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO is unsatisfactory. The appellant requested Page 2 of 5 the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and award him compensation for the huge loss & damages.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.06.2017 replied that information sought is available on www.stockholding.co.in. The FAA vide his order dated 21.08.2017 provided the information to the appellant.

5. The appellant and the respondent Mr. Duryadhan Behra, Dy. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ranchi attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant submitted that Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain had purchased e-stamp from Bank of Baroda, Giridih Branch for Rs. 40,000/- in which appellant's name was mentioned as first party. Subsequently without any application from Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain, the Bank of Baroda cancelled the same and replaced the e- stamp in the name of Shri Sachin Kumar. The appellant alleged that on the said amended e-stamp, Shri Sachin Kumar got a forged sale deed scribed allegedly executed by the appellant. Therefore the appellant sought information as to how the rectified e-stamp was issued to Shri Sachin Kumar and under which rule it was done.

5.2. The respondent submitted that Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain had requested to change the name from Shri Sanjiv Kumar Jain to Shri Sachin Kumar Jain vide application dated 05.05.2015. Thereafter after consultation from the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited, the old e-stamp was cancelled and a new e-stamp in the name of Shri Sachin Kumar was issued on 06.05.2015. They further submitted that copy of rules under which name was changed is available with Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that some malfeasance cannot Page 3 of 5 be ruled out. It is pertinent to mention that appellant's contention was that this property was sold fraudulently and title of the property is still in dispute. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Commission directs the respondent to facilitate inspection of complete records and provide certified copies of documents selected by the appellant. The respondent is also directed to procure a copy of the rules under which name was changed and provide the same to the appellant. All the directions should be complied with within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also feels that interest of justice would be served if the parties were given the final opportunity to present their case properly. Hence, the instant matter is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

Suresh Chandra (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date:14.06.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिध मािणत स य ित) R. Sitarama Murthy(आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAMSHEDPUR, BARODA SURYA BHAWAN, MAIN ROAD, BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR831001.

MR. GOBIND PRASAD KHETAN, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, JAMSHEDPUR, BARODA SURYA BHAWAN, MAIN ROAD, BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR- 831001 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission