Adarsh Bhandari vs Union Bank Of India on 4 March, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Adarsh Bhandari vs Union Bank Of India on 4 March, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through her RTI application dated 13.12.2017 and first appeal dated 18.01.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

I would request you to provide the following information pertaining to the MFs- Folio CP8G - Folios rc226345 and 10230065 allotted by UNIONAMC which is a subsidiary company of the Union Bank of India, and have allegedly shown Union Bank of India as distributor for the above allotment.

(i) Please send the photocopies of the two application forms based on which the above two MFs allotted.

(ii) Please also send the photocopies of any other document pertaining to the allotment of above two MFs.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 13.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 22.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 26.02.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 26.02.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent have denied the information on the ground that it was related to third party.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.01.2018 that the information was related to third party and no public interest was involved in the matter. Further, the CPIO stated that the dispute relating to the matter was pending before the court for adjudication, hence, the information could not be furnished to the appellant.

Page 2 of 6

Hearing on 15.11.2019 4.1 The appellant's representative Shri Kuldip Raj Bhandari and on behalf of the respondent Shri Jayadeesh V, Chief Manager(Law), Union Bank of India, Delhi attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim decision dated 11.12.2019 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 11.12.2019:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the reply given by the respondent vide letter dated 22.01.2018 is perfunctory. The information sought for by the appellant is related to MF portfolio held by her and her son. The respondent has further stated that the dispute relating to the matter was pending before the court. None of the aforementioned grounds by the respondent are exempted under the provision of Section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the respondent is directed that the information being related to the appellant's mutual fund portfolio be made available to her within 10 days of receipt of this order. The Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show-cause Notice to Shri. S.B. Jha, the then CPIO and Shri. Sudhakar Rao, present CPIO, to show-cause why penalty as per Section 20 of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for obstruction of information. All written submission must reach this Commission within 21 days."

Hearing on 30.01.2020

5. The appellant's authorized representative Shri Kuldip Raj Bhandari and on behalf of the respondent, Shri G.K. Sudhakar Rao, Dy. Regional Head & CPIO and Shri Jayadeesh V. Chief Manager (Law), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

Page 3 of 6

5.1. The appellant's authorized representative inter alia submitted that the appellant had received the information only after the directions of the Commission and also alleged that the documents provided were not certified by the respondent. The appellant argued that in spite of lapse of around two years from the date of filing of this RTI application, the respondent had failed to provide complete documents duly certified, stamped, signed with date. Hence, he requested the Commission to impose maximum penalty on the concerned for providing delayed and misleading information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought by the appellant was not directly available with them as same pertained to Mutual Fund business of another company i.e. Union Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Union KBC Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd) which did not come under the purview of the RTI Act being a private limited company. They further submitted that Union Bank of India had acted only as the distributor of MFs and hence all records of the transactions were with the Union Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. only (Union AMC). Hence, they had to collect the information from the Union AMC in order to entertain the subject RTI application. Since Union AMC was accessible to Union Bank of India as a subsidiary company, the CPIO of the Bank collected the required information from Union AMC in order to provide the eligible information to the applicant.

5.3 The information was collected from Union AMC with a bona fide to provide information to the applicant. On receipt of the relevant information from Union AMC, it was observed that the name of Shri Sumit Bhandari was mentioned as existing holder and the then CPIO believed that since the unit holder's name had been mentioned as Shri Sumit Bhandari, it was third party information to others.

Page 4 of 6

Inadvertently it was not understood by the then CPIO that Mrs Adarsh Bhandari was also the unit holder of the Mutual Fund as her name had been added as the second applicant. Further, the appellant had not stated that the MFs were in the joint name with Shri Sumit Bhandari. Since the unit holder has not approached for the information, the information was not provided to the applicant under the bona fide belief that it may not be proper to provide the information to the applicant being the third party information.

5.4. The respondent further submitted that the then CPIO in the matter had acted reasonably under the bona fide belief and there was no mala fide on part of the respondent for not furnishing the information. It was further submitted that in compliance of the directions of the Commission, the information had been furnished to the applicant vide letter dated 18.12.2019. They humbly submitted that the information was not provided earlier only due to the misunderstanding and wrong interpretation of the facts and there was no willful or intentional denial of information. They regretted for not providing the information within the stipulated time period due the reason stated above and humbly requested to condone the same.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that information/documents provided by the respondent in compliance of the interim order of the Commission are not in the form of certified copy. Hence, the respondent is directed to provide the information/documents as sought by the appellant in the form of certified copy, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission takes serious note of non-furnishing the certified copy to the appellant and cautioned them to be more careful while dealing with the RTI application. Besides, the Commission feels that there was no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information Page 5 of 6 sought by the appellant. In view of the absence of mala fide on the part of the then CPIO, there appears to be no ground for imposition of penalty. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to Shri S.B. Jha, the then CPIO and Shri Sudhakar Rao, present CPIO, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, New Delhi, are hereby dropped. With the above observation and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.03.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Sh. Sudhakar Rao (C.P.I.O) UNION BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office, 6th Floor, Konnectus Tower, Unit- 602A, Tower-II, Airport Metro Express Line, Ajmeri Gate, Opp. New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi -110002 (For forwarding to Sh. S.B. Jha -the then C.P.I.O)

2. Sh. Sudhakar Rao (C.P.I.O) UNION BANK OF INDIA, Regional Office, 6th Floor, Konnectus Tower, Unit- 602A, Tower-II, Airport Metro Express Line, Ajmeri Gate, Opp. New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi - 110 002 ADARSH BHANDARI Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission