Namita Sarkar vs Union Bank Of India on 7 September, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Namita Sarkar vs Union Bank Of India on 7 September, 2021

1. The issues raised in second appeals arising out of the RTI applications dated 27.11.2018 were similar. Therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in all the four second appeals. (CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117805, CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117702, CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117803 & CIC/UBIND/A/2019/114921) 1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 25.03.2019 and 10.04.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by Page 1 of 6 the appellant through her RTI application dated 27.11.2018 and first appeal dated 16.02.2019:-

CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117805 "The bank's client, Shri Jitendra Kumar Parastey, S/o. Shri N. N. Parastey, House No. 14/K, Bangla Tola, Duhaniya, Dindori, Distt.- Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh purchased her plot of land as per the Registered Sale Deed No. MP182552017A1441668 dated 29/07/2017 recording therein the payment details by Branch Cheque No. 02012369 dated 01/10/2017; whereas no payment has been received by her on this account from any corner till date.

(i) Whether the cheque No.02012369 dated 01.10.2017 has actually been encased.

(ii) If encased, who is the recipient of the cheque amount? and

(iii) Any other information bank would like to intimate her to this effect.

CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117702 "Appellant's client, Shri Raju Khan, SA). Shri Munne Khan, House No. 43, A.G.K. Husain Compound, Sadar, Cantontment, Jabalpur- 482001 purchased my plots of land as per Registered Sale Deed No. MP182552017A1446005 dated 31/07/2017 recording therein the payment details by Branch Cheques No. 33116354, and No. 33116355; whereas no payment has been received by her on this account from any corner till date.

(i) Whether the cheque No33116354 and No.33116355 have actually been encased.

(ii) If encased, who is the recipient of the cheque amount?

(iii) Any other information bank would like to intimate her to this effect.

Page 2 of 6

CIC/UBIND/A/2019/117803 "Appellant's client, Shri Sitanshu Punj, Sio. Shri Sushil Kumar Punj, House No. 50, Sadar Road, Sadar Bazar, Cantontment, Jabalpur- 482001 purchased her plots of land as per Registered Sale Deed No. MP182552017A1446790 dated 31/07/2017 recording therein the payment details by your Branch Cheques No. 33147521, and No.10014487; whereas no payment has been received by her on this account from any corner till date.

(i) Whether the cheque No331147521 and No.10014487 have actually been encased.

(ii) If encased, who is the recipient of the cheque amount?

(iii) Any other information you would like to intimate her to this effect"

CIC/UBIND/A/2019/114921 Your client, Shri Mayank Rajput, S/o Shri Harbaran Singh Rajput, Flat No.205 purchased her plot of land as per Registered Sale Deeds No.MP182552017A1446803 dated 31.07.2017 recording therein the payment details by your branch cheques no. 33167288, No. 33167289, No.33167290 and No.33167291; whereas no payment has been received by her on this account from any corner till date.

(i) Whether the cheque No.33167288, No.33167290 and No. 33167291 have actually been encashed.

(ii) If encashed, who is the recipient of the cheque amount?

(iii) Any other information bank would like to intimate her to this effect.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed applications dated 27.11.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Jabalpur, seeking aforesaid Page 3 of 6 information. The CPIO did not any reply. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.02.2019. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeals dated 25.03.2019 and 10.04.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 25.03.2019 and 10.04.2019 inter alia on the grounds that she had not sought information regarding bank account details of the respondent's customers but had requested for encashment position of the cheques for which she was payee as recorded in sale deed and had the cheques been presented by her for encashment, it was mandatory for the bank to either pay her the written amounts or return the same with Return Memo disclosing the reasons thereof. 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. Perusal of the documents submitted by the appellant for filing the second appeals dated 25.03.2019 and 10.04.2019 revealed that the CPIO and the FAA did not give any reply or information to the appellant.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajiv Tiwari, Regional Head & CPIO, Union Bank of India, Jabalpur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding the cheque for which she had claimed to be the payee, however, their cheques revealed that she was not the payee for the aforementioned cheque. The appellant vide letter dated 24.06.2019 was informed that drawer of the cheques mentioned in the RTI applications. The respondent further submitted that the drawers of the cheques, Shri Jitendra Kumar Parastey, Shri Raju Khan, Shri Sitanshu Punj and Shri Mayank Rajput had requested the Branch Manager to stop payment of cheques drawn by them for different amounts. The copies of the request letters for stop payment were also made available to the appellant. The respondent further referred to their written submissions dated 24.05.2021in which they brought out that the account Page 4 of 6 holders had sent their letters for not disclosing any information relating to their accounts. Therefore, disclosure of the same was exempted under provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent replied on 24.06.2019 and informed the appellant about the stop payment over cheques referred to in the RTI applications. However, the appellant contended in her second appeals that she had not received the information. Perusal of RTI application and claim made in her second appeals revealed that she had sold her properties to four individuals namely Shri Jitendra Kumar Parastey, Shri Raju Khan, Shri Sitanshu Punj and Shri Mayank Rajput and all these payments were supposed to be made to her in lieu of sale of her properties. Further, the respondent also claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, it may be noted that the appellant did not seek any personal details involving account details, etc. Therefore, the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory and incomplete. Public interest demands that the appellant should be informed that cheques were not drawn in her name and the payer had issued instructions not to make payment of the cheques. In view of the above, the respondent are directed to re-visit the RTI applications and provide the information to the appellant including name (s) of payee(s), within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these directions and observation, the appeals are disposed off.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 07.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, JABALPUR GURUNANAK MARKET, NEAR JYOTI CINEMA, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) - 482 001 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTORITY, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, JABALPUR GURUNANAK MARKET, NEAR JYOTI CINEMA, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (M.P.) - 482 001 MS. NAMITA SARKAR Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission