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

A Sivabhushanam vs Syndicate Bank on 30 August, 2018

                                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/ SYNDB/A/2017/132271


A. Sivabhushanam                                            ... अपीलकता /Appellant


                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम


CPIO: Syndicate Bank,
Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu.                                  ... ितवादीगण /Respondents



Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 26.10.2016           FA      : 18.01.2017           SA     : 09.05.2017

CPIO : 21.11.2016          FAO : 18.02.2017               Hearing : 28.08.2018


                                    ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu seeking copy of loan agreement signed by Shri Ramachandran S/o Shri Veerasami Naidu, Ekkadukandigi/Seeythanjari Village Page 1 of 4 along with copies of land records submitted by him for availing loan for purchase of Ferguson Tractor.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO denied the information sought on the plea that the same is third party information. The appellant stated that he sought information regarding the mortgage loan availed by his brother over joint family properties over which he has got a right of interest and hence he is not 'third party'. The appellant requested the Commission to set aside the Order passed by the CPIO and FAA and to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri A. Sivabhushanam was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri P. Thangavelu, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Chennai-I, attended the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The respondent submitted that appellant was informed vide letter dated 21.11.2016, that the information relates to a third party and the third party concerned had objected to the disclosure of the information sought. Hence information is denied under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the appellant has claimed that he is a co-owner of the property which has been mortgaged with the bank by the borrower to avail a loan. The Commission notes that in the matter of Central Bank of India vs. Union Page 2 of 4 of India & Ors., [W. P. (C) No. 4190/2013- judgment dated 29.10.2013] Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"5. The provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) RTI Act on which reliance was placed by the CPIO would not apply in case the information is sought by the person to whom it pertains. Such an exemption can be claimed only when the 'personal information' relates to a third party. Since according to respondent No.2 he is one of the co-owners of the said property, in case any information with respect to mortgage of the said property with the bank is provided, that would not be a personal information related only to respondent No.3, she being only one of the co-owners and would equally a personal information of the other co-owners, including respondent No.2. Consequently providing such an information, to a co- owner of the property will not be the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act............"

6. As per the ratio of the above-cited judgment, the appellant is entitled to receive information regarding the loan account against which his property has been mortgaged as collateral security. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide the information sought for within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of documents establishing that the appellant is a co-owner of the land mortgaged with the bank.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Page 3 of 4

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

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date:29.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, 3, Panagal Street, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-602001.
2. Shri A. Sivabhushanam, Page 4 of 4