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 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jaikavitha vs Canara Bank on 18 May, 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/CANBK/A/2021/635224
Jaikavitha                                       ... अपीलकता /Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                                 बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank
Madurai, Tamil Nadu                                      ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 04.04.2021                 FA    : 08.06.2021         SA     :07.08.2021

CPIO : 15.05.2021                FAO : 07.07.2021           Hearing :29.03.2023


                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(17.05.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 07.08.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.04.2021 and first appeal dated 08.06.2021:-

(i) The attached copy of Bank account ledger statement of M/s. Morvi Export, under contract ref no. ******B14330000 is a reversal entry OR Bank disbursed Rs. 4 crores loan to M/s Morvi Export on 26.11.2014 and declared under NPA on 15.12.2014.
(ii) Whether bank reporting this NPA details to RBI/CICs. Furnish those particulars.
Page 1 of 3

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.04.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.05.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.06.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 07.07.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 07.08.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 07.08.2021 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 15.05.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Since the matter is subjudice, the same cannot be provided under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The information sought by you is in the nature of seeking clarification/ opinion/answer to question/reply to a query which is interrogatory in nature which does not fall under the purview of definition of 'Information' in terms of Section 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 07.07.2021 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Chandrashkehar, Divisional Manager, & CPIO, Canara Bank, Madurai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was partner of M/s Morvi Exports. They informed that the appellant had provided incorrect account number hence the information sought could not be provided to her.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the appellant being one of the partners of M/s Morvi Exports was entitled for the information sought by her. The then CPIO vide letter dated 15.05.2021 claimed that the information could not be provided for the reasons of matter being sub-judice. However, there was no such ground enumerated under section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO during the course of hearing argued that the account number mentioned was not correct.There was incongruity in the submissions given by the respondent during the course of hearing. The Commission is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to provide information, if the appellant provides correct account number, within three weeks from the date of receipt of 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: 17.05.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Canara Bank Madura Regional office, 4th Floor, Pandiyan House, West Perumal Mastry Street, Madurai, Tamilnadu -625001 First Appellate Authority Canara Bank Madura Regional office, 4th Floor, Pandiyan House, West Perumal Mastry Street, Madurai, Tamilnadu - 625001 Ms Jaikavitha Page 3 of 3