Central Information Commission
Ankit Jain vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 1 January, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/657431
Ankit Jain ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
UCO Bank,
Chandigarh ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.05.2022 FA : 14.07.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 06.06.2022 FAO : No Order Hearing : 22.12.2023
Date of Decision: 29.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.05.2022 seeking information regarding the loan account of M/s GG Continental Trades Pvt. Ltd. through 16 points as under:
(i) "Photocopies of all Title Deeds of IPs in the name of Sh. Saran Dass, S/o Sh.
Nohar Chand Garg said to be mortgaged to bank for granting credit facilities to above said firm.
(ii) Photocopies of all valuation reports got done by bank from approved valuer of the bank and valuation certificate of bank officials of my IPs said to be mortgaged to bank.
Page 1 of 5(Period for which Information sought: From 31.01.2013 to 05.05.2022)
(iii) Photocopies copies of all legal search reports of my IPs got conducted by advocate on bank's panel.
(Period for which Information sought: From 31.01.2013 to 05.05.2022)
(iv) Photocopies copies of all letters of intent, if any, signed by me for creation/continuation/extension of charge/mortgage in favour of bank to secure the credit facilities granted to above said firm.
(Period for which Information sought: From 31.01.2013 to 05.05.2022)
(v) Photocopies copies of mortgage deed register showing the entry of Equitable Mortgage of Ips (belongs to me) by bank officials. Provide me complete details of date of mortgage of IP's and extension of charge time to time. (Period for which Information sought: From 31.01.2013 to 05.05.2022)
(vi) Provide me the copy of CERSAI making entry of mortgage in respect of my properties said to be mortgaged to bank for securing the credit facilities to above firm time to time.
(Period for which information sought: From 31.01.2013 to 05.05.2022).." etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.06.2022 in the following manner:-
i. "Photocopies of Title Deeds in the name of Sh. Saran Dass, S/o Sh. Nohar Chand Garg enclosed as Annexure A. ii. Valuation Reports are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
iii. Legal Search Reports are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
iv. Letters of Intent are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
v. Information sought is Internal Document of Bank. vi. Information sought is Internal Document of Bank." etc. Page 2 of 5
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.07.2022. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. The Appellant was represented by Advocate Bhim Singh Narwal through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajendar Rajput, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Advocate for the Appellant argued that the CPIO has denied all of the information on points 2-16 of the RTI Application even as the information pertains to the Appellant's firm itself.
7. The Respondent submitted that whatever documents the Appellant has sought for at points 2-16 has been already submitted by the borrower in DRT and since recovery suits have been filed by the Bank in DRT, all documents are submitted to DRT and copy of the documents are duly served to the parties. It was further added that the firm has become NPA with over Rs. 34 crores outstanding and it was a consortium loan with other banks therefore the records involved are humungous and scattered. Upon a query from the Commission regarding the futility of mentioning "internal document" for most part of the RTI Application, the Respondent struggled to explain that since it was a consortium loan involving other lending banks, the stakes of the Bank's commercial confidence being jeopardized with such disclosure was high, therefore the information could not have been provided to the Appellant, particularly in the absence of any specific record or a specific time line referred to in the RTI Application. Thereon, the Respondent continued to harp on the unspecific nature of the RTI queries to justify their intent behind providing the averred reply.
8. The Advocate for the Appellant objected to the submissions of the Respondent regarding the documents having been submitted to DRT as it was his contention that the CPIO was misleading the bench, the case pending in DRT was with respect to Canara Bank Page 3 of 5 and the documents sought for in the instant RTI Application have not been received by his client from any forum till date.
9. Taking into consideration the stance of the Respondent as well as the arguments of the Appellant, the Commission explored the possibility of offering an opportunity of inspection of the available records to the Appellant, to which, the Respondent had a strong objection on the grounds that the Appellant has not asked for any specific information and the records entailed are massive. It was also the persistent request of the Respondent that the matter may be adjourned for them to submit a revised reply in the matter to the Commission. However, having provided an opportunity of filing written submissions vide the hearing notice issued to the Respondent and considering the efflux of time, the Commission did not find it expedient to adjourn the matter for the sole reason that the Respondent failed to file any advance written submission or be thoroughly prepared for the hearing.
10. The Commission upon a close scrutiny of the facts on record observes at the outset that the Appellant having prefixed "all" to most of his RTI queries and at the same time, mentioning a timeline of 9 years, concededly renders the information sought for in the RTI Application to be largely unspecific. It is clear beyond reasonable doubt that collating the complete record as desired will entail disproportionate diversion of resources of the public authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. For the said reason, although the Commission views adversely the reply provided by the CPIO, a liberal view is being taken in the matter for the lack of specifics in the contents of the RTI Application.
11. Now, therefore the CPIO is hereby directed to provide a revised reply to the Appellant in a point-wise manner incorporating permissible information and specify the applicability of Section 8 exemptions wherever feasible. The said revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Page 4 of 512. Upon receipt of the revised reply, if the Appellant remains dissatisfied, the Appellant is advised to specify his requirement or restrict the time period for which he seeks "all" records. Thereafter, to facilitate the Appellant, the CPIO is at liberty to offer an opportunity of inspection of the available records subject to the exemptions of Section 8 to the Appellant in order to allay any of his apprehensions and at the same time, to avoid causing disproportionate diversion of resources of the public authority.
13. With the above directions, the Appeal is disposed off.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
UCO Bank,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Zonal Office Chandigarh, UCO Bank Building,
55,56,57, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh-160017
2. Ankit Jain Page 5 of 5