Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Bharat Ashok Mawal vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2023

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                       के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                   बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BOMAH/A/2021/631739
Bharat Ashok Mawal                               ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra
Ahmednagar                                               ... ितवादीगण/Respondents


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 12.04.2021                 FA    : 03.05.2021         SA      : 16.07.2021

CPIO: 30.04.2021                 FAO : No Order             Hearing : 10.02.2023


                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(19.04.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.07.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 12.04.2021 and first appeal dated 03.05.2021:-

(i) Provide copy of mortgage documents i.e. Annexure A, Annexure B, Annexure C executed for sanction dated 28.03.2013 in respect of the appellant's loan account No *********1026.
(ii) Provide copy of Cersai Receipt for the mortgage documents executed for sanction dated 28.03.2013.
Page 1 of 6
(iii) Provide copy of receipt issued by Central registry confirming the creation of security interest immovable properties for sanction dated 28.03.2013.
(iv) Provide copy of applications and bank letters, mortgage documents made to respective Talathi's to create mortgage charge on the properties mortgaged under sanction 28-03-2013.
(v) Provide the copy of registered mortgage deed for sanction dt.23. 04.2013 executed on 20.06.2013.
(vi) Provide copy of applications and bank letters, mortgage documents made to respective Talathi's to create mortgage charge on the properties mortgaged under sanction dated 23.04.2013.
(vii) Provide copy of mortgage documents i.e. Annexure A, Annexure B, Annexure C executed for sanction dated 18-09-2013.
(viii) Provide us with the copy of Cersai Receipt for the said mortgage deed executed for sanction dated 18-09-2013
(ix) Please provide us with the copy of receipt issued by Central registry confirming the creation and extension of security interest in the said immovable properties for sanction dated 18-09-2013.
(x) Please provide us with the copy of applications and bank letters, mortgage documents made to respective Talathi's to create mortgage charge on the properties mortgaged under sanction dt. 18-09-2013.
(xi) Please provide us with copy of Registered Mortgage Deed for Plot No.5 situated at S. No.147/12+13 admeasuring 225.75sq.mtrs. owned by Pankaj Ashok Mawal, Bharat Ashok Mawal &Mridul Ashok Mawal as mentioned in 13(2) notice of 02-12-2017 by bank.
(xii) Please Provide us with copy of Registered Mortgage Deed for N.A. property situated at S. No.31 1/1/1 admeasuring 2047.21 sq.mtrs. owned by Ashok Page 2 of 6 Madanlal Mawal & Gitadevi Ashok Mawal as mentioned in 13(2) notice of 02- 12-2017 by bank
(xiii) Provide us with copy of Registered Mortgage Deed for N.A. Plot property situated at S. No.1 1/6 admeasuring 805.53 sq. mtrs. owned by Pankaj Ashok Mawal, Bharat Ashok Mawal & Mridul Ashok Mawal as mentioned in 13(2) notice of 02-12-2017 by bank.
(xiv) Please Provide us with copy of Registered Mortgage Deed for N.A. property CTS. No.6447-B admeasuring 113.70 sq. mtrs. At Sarjepura owned by Ashok Madanlal Mawal as mentioned in 13(2) notice of 02-12-2017 by bank
(xv) Please provide us with the list of Vetting documents vetted for sanction dated 23-05-2014.
(xvi) Please provide us with the copy of Demand Promissory Note dt.28-05-2014. (xvii) Please provide deed of guarantee for all the facilities dt.28-05-2014. (xviii) Please provide copy of Balance confirmation from the Borrowers and Guarantors dt.29-06-2017.
(xix) Please provide us the copy of loan application dated 28-05-2014 as mentioned in 13(2) notice of 02-12-2017 by bank.
(xx) Copy of all original search report and original search fee receipt held on record issued by Panel Advocates regarding all the properties mortgaged for sanction dated 23-05-2014. Etc. on total 27 points.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.04.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Ahmednagar. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.04.2021replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.05.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.07.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 3 of 6

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.07.2021 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 30.04.2021and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Informed by the concerned Branch that an FIR has been lodged against the Applicant along with other by Bank of Maharashtra Savedi Branch for cheating the Bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them.

The investigation is under process.

(ii) Applicant sought copies of near about 27 documents in his application. Providing documents/information as sought by the applicant would impede the process of investigation in the matter. Hence, same cannot be provided being exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant represented by Shri Ashok Pawar and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vishal Wagh, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought was not provide by the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that the appellant sought aforesaid details to submit the same to the police as well as to the court.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the bank had lodged an FIR against the appellant along with others for cheating the bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them. They further submitted that since the investigation in the said matter was pending and hence they denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information Page 4 of 6 related to his loan account. The respondent had denied the information stating that the bank had lodged an FIR against the appellant along with others for cheating the bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them. Accordingly, they submitted that the investigation in the said matter was pending at the time of giving response and they had denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, during the course of hearing the respondent failed to provide the information regarding the stage of investigation. They were not sure as to whether the investigation in the said matter was over or still going on. It may not be out of place to mention that if the investigation was complete or charge sheet had been filed, then, the exemption claimed under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act would not be applicable. The respondent who appeared before the Commission was not aware of the facts of the case properly and thus failed to assist the Commission. The Commission takes a serious note and cautions the CPIO to be more careful in future while presenting the case before the Commission. Further, the respondent is directed to verify the records as to whether the investigation in the aforesaid matter was complete or charge sheet had been filed and thereafter provide the revised point-wise information/reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 19.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra Gurukul, 2nd Floor, Lal Taki Road, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra - 414 001 First Appellate Authority Bank of Maharashtra Gurukul, 2nd Floor, Lal Taki Road, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra - 414 001 Shri Bharat Ashok Mawal Page 6 of 6