Central Information Commission
Gurcharan Singh vs Punjab National Bank on 31 May, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/613289
ADJUNCT
DECISION
Gurcharan Singh ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Punjab National Bank ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Rajendra Place, New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.12.2017 FA : 14.01.2018 SA : 03.03.2018
CPIO : 06.01.2018 FAO : 12.02.2018 Hearing : 29.05.2024
Date of Decision: 31.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2017 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Certified copy of the complete relevant files related to the property mentioned at S. No. 57 on the name of Ms. Monika Babbar of the above said auction list dying in the office of authorized officer Sh. Arvind Kumar Gupta, ARMB Mayur Vihar Page 1 of 9 PH-2 Delhi. The property is related to M/s villa plast and situated at D-343 2ndfloor Anand Vihar Delhi.
(ii) Certified copy of all the files related to the property mentioned at S. No. 57 on the name of Ms. Monika Babbar of the about said auction list lying in PNB Shastri Nagar Delhi branch. The property is related to M/s villa plast and situated at D-343 2nd floor Anand Vihar, Delhi.
(iii) Provide the complete information regarding all the litigations decided or pending among the villa plast and Monika Babbar or any other regarding the property no D 343 Anandi Vihar within the knowledge of bank.
(iv) Provide the complete chain of ownership documents of the above said property along with the reports of the advocates who legally verified the property and its title time to time.
(v) Provide the complete details of auction including relevant order of the legal authority to auction, admn orders etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.01.2018 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i, ii & iv: Information is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.
iii: Bank has filed recovery suit against the firm and guarantors in the NPA account of M/s. Villa Plast.
v: Auction details are as under:-
IP Details: D-343, Second Floor Anand Vihar Delhi in the name of Monica Babbaer W/o. Bavendu Babbaer measuring 125 square yards (approx.. 104.51 sq. mtr.) Status of Possession: Physical Auction Date: 30.12.2017 Last date of depositing EMD: 28.12.2017 Authority of the auction: Authorised Officer, Chief Manager, ARMB Mayur Vihar, Page 2 of 9 Delhi
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.01.2018 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.02.2018 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.03.2018.
Hearing on 15.11.2019 The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri V P Asthana, CPIO, Corporate Office North Delhi, Punjab National Bank attended the hearing through video conference.
The appellant submitted that he was the buyer of the property referred to in the RTI application and the respondent had not provided the requisite document. He alleged that though there was transfer of title, but registration process had not been completed.
The respondent submitted that they had provided the auction details to the appellant vide letter dated 06.01.2018. However, the documents relating to litigation over the property were not furnished to the appellant.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that the reply given by the respondent is incomplete and evasive. The respondent had produced the Agreement to sell, Sale Certificate during the course of hearing. Perusal of the records reveals that the appellant is the purchaser of the property, D-343, 2nd Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Public interest demands that the documents requested for may be provided to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that complete information may be made available to the appellant within 10 days of receipt this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Hearing on 17.09.2021 The appellant attended the hearing in person and the respondent remained absent.
Page 3 of 9The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by respondent despite clear directions of the Commission. Accordingly, he requested the Commission to take necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act and direct the respondent to provide the complete information.
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had defied the order dated 11.12.2019 of the Commission. The respondent remained absent despite notice having been served to them. The respondent have not sought leave of the Commission for not attending the hearing and in their absence it is difficult to ascertain as to whether they have complied with the CIC's order or not. In view of this, Shri V P Asthana, the then CPIO (as on 11.12.2019) and Shri R K Pattanaik, present CPIO are show caused as to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO (as on 11.12.2019) and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to comply with the order dated 11.12.2019 of the Commission, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Hearing on 18.01.2022 The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vijay Jhinga, Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Delhi attended the hearing through audio conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by respondent despite directions of the Commission. Accordingly, he requested the Commission to take necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act and direct the respondent to provide the complete information.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that hearing notice as well as the previous order was not received by them therefore they were not in a position to present the case.
Page 4 of 9The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that hearing notice sent to the respondent was returned undelivered. The respondent was contacted through telephone who informed that their mailing address had been changed. In view of this, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned and the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue fresh notice to the parties.
Hearing on 29.05.2024
5. On behalf of the respondent Shri Ajay Jain, Chief Manager, Shri Vijay Bhawani, Senior Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had complied with the Commission's order dated 11.12.2019 vide letter dated 03.02.2020. He further stated that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous in nature, hence, it took some time to compile the said records. The CPIO submitted that Shri V P Asthana, the then CPIO, had retired from services and could not be contacted regarding the show-cause hearing. The written submissions sent by Shri R K Pattanaik, CPIO, in response to the show cause notice issued by the Commission was sent vide letter dated 28.05.2024, the extracts of which are reproduced as under:
"1. This is in reference to the non-compliance filed by Mr. Gurcharan Singh wherein a show cause notice has been served on the undersigned in respect of an RTI dated 10.12.2017 It is respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble Commission that the said RTI pertains to year 2017 and the undersigned has taken over the duties as CPIO, Circle Office- North Delhi on year 2021 till 31.01.2024, on dated 31.01.2024 undersigned has been superannuated from bank service. After retirement, undersigned is permanently settled in Badipada Odisha. The present complaint has been filed against non- compliance of CIC Order dated 11.12.2019. The submissions on behalf of the undersigned are: 1. That the applicant had sought information pertains to auction conducted under SARFAESI Act in respect of property mortgaged in NPA Account A/c Villa Plast and also sought certified copies of relevant files and record thereof. The RTI in question was replied by the then CPIO, Circle Office- North Delhi on 06.01.2018 Page 5 of 9
2. That In pursuant to order dated 11.12.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Commission, the, but to due old and voluminous record including certified copies of the records, revised reply containing 168 pages documents sent to the appellant vide speed post numberED457999700IN dated 04.02.2020. 3. That it is relevant to mention here that the appellant has filed Noncompliance of order vide its letter dated 26.01.2020 addressed to this Hon'ble Commission in the instant matter. We received letter dated 27.01.2020 from this Hon'ble Commission as to allegation of the noncompliance in the above matter and wherein we have been advised to submit our reply on the alleged non-compliance within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this letter. In response to the above non-compliance letter, we have filed our reply dated 19.02.2020 sent by speed post no- ED410151743IN dated 20.02.2020 wherein we have informed this Hon'ble Commission that it has come to knowledge to my predecessor on 27.01.2020 that reply has not been provided to the appellant, and then issue was taken up with concerned branch and revised reply dated 03.02.2020 vide speed post ED457999700IN dated 04.02.2020 containing 168 pages documents sent to the appellant.
4. That vide its order dated 18.11.2021, this Hon'ble Commission has pleased to issue show cause notice to the present as well as the then CPIO for non-compliance of order dated 11.12.2019, which was sent to our previous address, it is humbly submitted that in Feburary, 2020 but due to peak Covid Pandemic and relocation of our office from Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place Delhi to our New Office- 3rd Vikrant Tower, Rajendra Place, Delhi, said notice/order could not reached to our office and said order/notice was returned undelivered.
5. That due to Covid-19 Pandemic, all hearing of this Hon'ble Commission were conducted through tele-conferencing, wherein in the above matter, hearing dated 18.01.2022, it has come to knowledge of the our office that show cause Notice has been issued to the undersigned and this Hon'ble Commission has considered and recorded the fact in the order that "hearing notice sent to respondent was returned undelivered. The respondent was contacted through telephone who informed that their mailing address had been changed. In view of Justice, the matter is adjourned and registry of Page 6 of 9 this bench is directed to issue fresh notice to the parties". During time period of above hearing, I was posted as CPIO in Circle Office North Delhi, and being the then present CPIO in the order, the said show cause notice was issued to me. Since then matter was not listed before this Hon'ble bench of Commission.
6. That this is our first opportunity to make our submissions individually on the show cause notice issued by this Hon'ble Commission. It is humbly submit that due reply along with all supporting documents as sought in the RTI Application has already been provided to the appellant vide reply dated 03.02.2020 vide speed post ED457999700IN dated 04.02.2020 also sent compliance intimation letter dated 19.02.2020 sent by speed post no- ED410151743IN dated 20.02.2020 to this Hon'ble Commission. Further, It has been informed by the bank that no objection or clarification/intimation received from the appellant either to Circle office or concerned branch as to any discrepancies in the revised reply or in any certified copies.
7. That during my tenure as CPIO in Circle Office North Delhi, I have efficiently disposed off all RTI Applications well within the time period as prescribed under RTI Act, 2005, by any stretch of the imagination, No RTI application was remained unanswered or non compliance in any matter in my tenure. Since the matter pertains to year 2018.
8. The said show cause notice has been served upon the undersigned to attend to the hearing and submit my reply, I am permanently settled in Badipara Odisha and I intend to attend the hearing through teleconferencing and my mobile number is xxxxx95141.
9. That during my tenure as CPIO, I dealt all RTI applications judiciously and adhered with all rules and regulations prescribed under Right to Information, Act, 2005. It is pertinent to mention here that no adverse remarks received during my tenure. 10. That in case of any delay on the part of the undersigned for disposing of the said RTI was unintentional. The undersigned most humbly submits that the efforts had all along been made bonafidely to dispose of the matter. Any inconvenience caused is deeply regretted in this matter. The undersigned have unblemished served in the Bank in various capacities for 39 years. This was the first and only show cause notice was received by this Hon'ble Commission in the entire service."Page 7 of 9
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent provided the requisite information i.e. documents running into 168 pages to the appellant on 03.02.2020. The respondent uploaded the enclosures sought in the RTI application on the Commission's web portal. The written explanations submitted by Shri R.K. Patnaik, CPIO, were found reasonable. In view of this, the Commission observes that there was no conscious or deliberate attempt to withhold the information sought by the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that information was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any mala fide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the respondent. Further, it was informed that Shri V P Asthana, the then CPIO, had retired from services. Therefore, no penal action may be initiated against him. In view of this, the Show Cause Notice issued to Shri V.P. Asthana, the then CPIO and Shri R K Pattanaik, CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 31.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) Circle Office North Delhi, 3rd Floor, Page 8 of 9 Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi - 110008 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)