Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 6 April, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 6 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 29.10.2021 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 04.01.2021 are as under:-

i) Provide certified copy of the valuation report by the qualified valuer for the selling off of the flats in RNA ROYALE PARK which included her two flats.

ii) Provide certified copy of the documents showing the rule stated in above letter that in case there is no bidder the reserve price is reduced by 10% keeping in mind that this public auction of the flats is already over two years ago.

iii) Provide certified copy of the rules as to the period for which the above documents in pars (i) & (ii) will be preserved by the bank before they are destroyed.

Page 1 of 5

iv) a) provide information whether the documents sought in paras (i) and (ii) will be denied to the Parliament if parliament wants to see the valuation report for the public auction done 2 years ago for the public funds blocked in these mortgaged flats. b) If the answer to para iv) a) is that this information will be denied to the Parliament also, provide certified copies of the rules under which it will be denied to the Parliament.

v) Provide information at what percentage of interest the borrowers RNA group of companies were given the loan who created fraudulent mortgage deed with the bank for the above 2 flats.

vi) Provide information on the amount of funds that BOI is required to block on the above flats belonging to this housewife in the possession of the bank as per the RBI rules on NPA (Non-Performing Assets) and also provide us certified copy of this RBI rules about blocking of Bank's funds in the NPA.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 04.01.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.02.2021 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 29.10.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant 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 04.02.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:

i) You do not possess legal ownership in respect of the disputed two flats.

However, copy of the last valuation report containing the valuation of the said disputed two flats can be provided to you. The valuation report Page 2 of 5 comprises of 20 pages. Please make payment of copying charges @ Rs. 2l- per page and arrange to collect the same.

ii) The guidelines for reduction of reserve price are contained in NPA Management Policy of the Bank, which is a private & confidential document. However, inspection of the relevant para can be allowed to you if you so desire.

iii) Old documents are dealt with as per Bank's Document Handling & Retention Policy, which also being privileged document, inspection of the relevant para can be allowed to you, if you so desire.

iv) a) The information sought is in the nature of query. Only available information which is not exempted can be provided under RTI Act. (b) The information sought is in the nature of query. Only available information which is not exempted can be provided under RTI Act.

v) At the time of creation of mortgage Bank was unaware of any transaction between you and our guarantor and till date you do not possess legal ownership of the disputed 2 flats. The information as to at what rate of interest loan was given to RNA Corp Pvt. Ltd. cannot be provided to you, the same being 3'd party information and also no public interest is involved.

vi) You do not have legal ownership of the disputed two flats. Further, only available information which is not exempted can be provided under RTI Act.

Hearing on 01.12.2022 4.1 The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prashant Kulkarni, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 5

Interim order dated 05.12.2022 4.2 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 05.12.2022:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the applicant filed a letter before the Commission stating that she received appointment letter from Delhi State Legal Service Authority appointing Adv. Rashmi Maurya to represent the instant case. But, Adv. Rashmi Maurya neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written submissions seeking exemption from personal appearance. In these circumstances, it is difficult to dispose of the instant matter; therefore, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the present matter in the interest of justice. The registry of this bench is directed to issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties concerned. The notice of hearing may also be served to the Counsel of applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 21.03.2023

5. The complainant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The advocate who represented the complainant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was evasive and incomplete. 5.2 Shri Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, while representing the bank inter alia submitted that he had joined the bank as a CPIO very recently and he was not aware of the facts of the case. He further informed that the complainant had filed multiple RTI applications seeking various informations and he wanted to go through all the files of the complainant and therefore, he sought some time from the Commission so that proper information or reply could be given.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that Shri Anup Kumar Sharma had recently joined the bank as CPIO and he was not aware of the complete facts of the case.

Page 4 of 5

Therefore, he sought some time to go through compete files of appellant/complainant to enable him to present the case properly. In view of the principle of natural justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to defend the case. Accordingly, the complaint is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 The FAA Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 Adv. Rashmi Maurya Central Panel, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi - 110002 (For information) Ms Pooja V Shah Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission