Central Information Commission
Msabha Dastane Rao vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001887/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 14th October 2014
Date of decision : 24th October 2014
Name of the Appellant : Ms. Abha Dastane Rao,
C/o Mrs. Mrinalini V. Gavde, E5/11, Arena
Colony (NonCommercila Area), Bhopal,
M.P. 462 016
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Bank of Maharashtra,
Office of General Manager (Planning), Planning Department Head Office, Lokmangal, 1501 Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 The Appellant was not present. Instead Ms. Shailaja Srinivasan was present at the NIC Studio, Bhopal to represent her, along with an authorization letter from the Appellant for the purpose.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri S. Bharatkumar, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Pune.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information under three points regarding disbursements made by the Respondents out of the Estate account of her father, Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane. The CPIO responded on 31.5.2013 and stated that the information sought was related to the Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. (METCO), which was a separate legal entity, and denied the information on this count. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 11.6.2013. In his order dated 15.6.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed second appeal to the CIC, which was registered by the Commission on 14.11.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the representative of the Appellant and the Respondents. The representative of the Appellant drew our attention to the written submissions made by the Appellant. She stated that the Appellant is one of the legal heirs of late Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane and wishes to know the details of the transactions made out of the Estate account of late Dr. Dastane between 29.11.2012 and 22.12.2012. From the Appellant's written submissions, we observe that she maintains that one Shri Prabhakar Deolankar, who claimed to be the executor of an alleged will left by her late father, got the will probated. According to the Appellant, the said probate is under adjudication for revocation in a civil court at Pune as it was obtained fraudulently. She has further submitted that the entire matter is subjudice between the legal heirs / nominees of the deceased Dr. Dastane, Shri Deolankar and METCO as POA holder of Shri Deolankar. In spite of order of the civil court Pune, METCO has not supplied the full information ordered to be provided by the court and in spite of injunction orders from the civil court Pune, METCO made payments to certain persons through the Respondent Bank. Therefore, four contempt petitions have been filed by the legal heirs in the High Court, Mumbai, wherein notices have been issued to the Respondents. According to the Appellant, the CPIO and FAA, who responded to her RTI application, are both on the Board of Directors of METCO. She has alleged that they have passed biased orders due to their conflict of interest.
3. The Respondents submitted that METCO is a company registered under Companies Act and is a separate legal entity. Therefore, they hold the bank account of METCO in their bank in a fiduciary capacity. Moreover, they are not maintaining a separate account for the estate of late Dr. Dastane. In view of the foregoing, the information was denied to the Appellant. They also submitted that some payments were made to certain beneficiaries of the will of late Dr. Dastane after obtaining indemnity and there was no court injunction in operation when the payments in question were made. They further submitted that the legal heirs have not provided indemnity. According to the Respondents, the Appellant along with other legal heirs has filed suits in different courts.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. We observe that METCO, though a subsidiary of Bank of Maharashtra, is a separate corporate entity. Therefore, we agree with the Respondents that they hold the account of METCO, from which the above mentioned payments were made in respect of the estate of late Dr. Dastane, in a fiduciary capacity. We would not question the bona fides of the CPIO and the FAA and treat their decisions as biased merely because they act in two different capacities. Further, the Appellant has alleged that the disbursements in question were made when a court injunction was in force, while the Respondents maintain that no injunction was in force at the time of the payments. The Commission is not competent to go into the issue of legality of the payments. From the submissions made by the representative of the Appellant, we note that she has taken up this matter in the High Court. Moreover, the Appellant has herself submitted to us a list of 11 beneficiaries on the letterhead of METCO, to whom payments were made as "beneficiaries of will of Late N.G. Dastane" through cheques drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Tilak Road Branch, Pune. This list answers some of the queries of the RTI Application, such as the persons who have received any payment, the mode of payment, the amount of payment in each case and date of payment etc. The Appellant had enquired whether indemnity bonds from each of those persons had been obtained. The Respondents stated during the hearing that the payments were made after obtaining indemnity. The Appellant had also sought copies of the indemnity bonds submitted by the concerned third parties and enquired about the timing of encashment of securities. Some of the queries are related to the timing of the payments in question - whether these were made during the operation of the court injunction or not, an issue which the Appellant has raised before High Court. The Appellant has also sought copies of the bank statements from October, 2012 to December, 2012. In this context, we recall the submission of the Respondents that they do not have a separate account for the estate of late Dr. Dastane. There is clearly a dispute about the disposal of the estate of late Dr. Dastane. There are multiple court cases concerning the issue, involving the legal rights and interests of various parties. In view of the foregoing, and particularly since the issue of the payments in question is before the High Court, the Commission would not order release of any information and would not interfere with the decision of the Respondents.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar