Central Information Commission
Harbindar Singh Deengra vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 29 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/HUDCO/A/2024/645611
Harbindar Singh Deengra .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
HUDCO Ltd, Core 7-A, HUDCO
Bhawan, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2025
Date of Decision : 29.04.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 11.07.2024
First appeal filed on : 30.06.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.07.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.10.2024
The instant matter is listed for hearing in compliance with the order dated
13.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP (C)
No. 3944 of 2025 which was received by the Commission on 25.03.2025.
Page 1 of 10
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.12.2023 (online) seeking the following information:
"1 How much total built-up area was put forth before DRT, Cuttack for Auction as HUDCO Approved valuer M/s AGE Consultant Bhubaneswar.
2. How much Built-up area of M/s Anmol International Pvt Ltd Mortgage with HUDCO at the time of availing the Term Loan.
3 How much built-up Area of M/s Anmol International Pvt Auctioned by you through DRT.
4. How much built-up area of M/s Anmol International Pvt Ltd Handover to Auction purchaser."
2. The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 11.07.2024 stating as under:
"1 DRT Cuttack for satisfaction of the decree has put forth the e-auction sale of the entire secured assets covered under mortgage on the basis of 'As is where is basis.
2 For creation of security equitable mortgage of the freehold land admeasuring 225 dec comprises of Khata No 365/107 Plot No. 554/1886 situated at Rourkela together with all the buildings and structures constructed or to be constructed thereon has been created.
3 The entire secured assets created by way of mortgage has been auctioned by DRT, Cuttack on the basis of 'As is where is basis.
4 Consequent to conformation of e-auction sale by DRT Cuttack, the entire property covered under certificate of sale of immovable property issued on dt 13.05.2019 in 'As is where is basis by the Recovered Officer, DRT Cuttack has been handed over to Auction Purchaser."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.06.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 29.07.2024, held as under:
"1 DRT Cuttack for satisfaction of the decree has put forth the e-auction sale of the entire secured assets covered under mortgage on the basis of Page 2 of 10 'As is where is basis'. Accordingly, the land & building which was the secured assets has been put to e-auction sale by DRT, Cuttack. The applicant being the designated signatory whilst creation of mortgage and party to ongoing litigation is very much aware of the details. Further the query pertains to an ongoing legal proceeding i.e. RP 87/2016 and the desire information are available in public domain and have accessibility to the information seeker.
2 Answer to the applicant query was provided and the present query is different than what was asked earlier. However, the answer is being reiterated. For creation of security equitable mortgage of the freehold land admeasuring A0.225 dec. comprises of Khata No. 365/107 Plot No. 554/1886 situated at Rourkela together with all the buildings and structures constructed or to be constructed thereon has been created.
3 The information seeker earlier pertaining to his query has already been supplied with the information. Now in the appeal he has put different query than what was sought earlier. However, for the sake of clarity even though the information seeker is aware of the details answer to the query is the entire secured assets created by way of mortgage has been auctioned by DRT, Cuttack on the basis of 'As is where is basis'.
4 The information seeker has put different query than what was earlier asked for. Hon'ble DRT Cuttack has conducted e-auction sale of the secured assets and consequent to conformation of e-auction sale by DRT Cuttack, the entire property covered under certificate of sale of immovable property issued on dt. 13.05.2019 in 'As is where is basis' by the Recovered Officer, DRT Cuttack has been handed over to Auction Purchaser."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Appellant along with his counsels Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan and Pranab Kumar Samantray appeared in person.
Respondent: Shri M R Sharma, CPIO/GM (Law); Shri Evelyne P. Toppo, DGM-A; Shri Ramesh Bhagat, Manager (IT); and Shri S K Panda, Regional Chief, appeared in person.Page 3 of 10
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that specific information i.e. specific built-up area in sqft, put for auction/mortgage with HUDCO, auctioned by DRT and handed over to the Auction purchaser was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing.
7. The appellant further submitted that M/s Anmol International Pvt. Ltd.
has availed Term Loan of Rs. 2.45 Crores out of total sanctioned amount of Rs. 4.40 Crores for renovation of the Hotel Project at Kacheri Road, Rourkela, Dist: Sundargarh, Orissa. On several requests further balance amount was not disbursed. Subsequently, loan account became NPA, and the appellant submitted OTS proposal, but without taking any final decision, HUDCO's Authority filed OA 381/2011 before the DRT, Cuttack which has been disposed ex-parte. Thereafter, the appellant's property was foreclosed and subsequently sold to auction purchaser. The counsels of the Appellant argued that there exists a discrepancy between the built- up area mentioned in the HUDCO valuer's report (27,749 sq ft) and the area actually registered in favour of the auction purchaser (16,500 sq ft). He alleged non-disclosure of factual information and potential manipulation by the public authority.
8. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 15.04.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"With reference to the Notice of Hearing for Appeal/Complaint No. CIC/HUDCO/A/2024/645611 dt. 07-04-2025, in respect of the RTI Application dt. 30-06-2024 (written as 30-12-2023 in the CIC Notice dt. 07- 04-2025) of Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra, the Appellant/Applicant, following is respectfully submitted:Page 4 of 10
A. Following the receipt of the RTI Application dt. 30-06-2024 of Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra (Annexure-l), the Appellant/Applicant, the CPIO, HUDCO sought the information (as applied for by the Appellant herein) from the Regional Chief, HUDCO Regional Office, Bhubaneshwar/CAPIO. Based on the information provided by Regional Chief/CAPIO, the CPIO vide his letter dated 11.07.2025 (Annexure-II (1) and II (2)) provided the information as sought by the Applicant (Appellant herein).
B. Not satisfied with the information provided to him the Appellant filed RTI First Appeal dt. 18-07-2024 (Annexure-III) which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority vide Order dt. 29-07-2024 by providing to the Appellant the same information with further explanations as submitted by the Bhubaneshwar Regional Office of HUDCO (Copy of the First Appellate Authority's Order dt. 29/07/2024 along with point-wise information with further explanations is enclosed herewith as (Annexure-IV(A) to IV(B)).
The Appellant has preferred the Second Appeal before the Hon'ble Commission alleging the denial of precise information, suppression of facts and lack of clarity.
In Reply to this Second Appeal, the Respondent submits as under:
II. Preliminary Submissions:
1) This Public Authority I.e. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) is a Public Sector Undertaking and a commercial entity, majorly owned by the Govt. of India and on account of being an entity owned and controlled by the Central Government, is a Public Authority for the purpose of the RTI Act. HUDCO is into the business of lending to the various Sectors of the economy. Since the lending by this Public Authority i.e. HUDCO is purely a commercial activity and not a sovereign or Governmental function, the transaction of lending between HUDCO and the Company of the Appellant is purely a Commercial transaction between two parties who stand on equal footing as Lender and Commercial Corporate borrower engaged in business for Profit (availing loan for its business purposes).
HUDCO, as a Commercial Lender, has to protect its business interests particularly in view of the fact that money lent by HUDCO is Public Money and HUDCO has to, therefore, take all possible legal recourse to Page 5 of 10 recover the loan from the borrower including filing various recovery cases in relevant Judicial forum.
2) The Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra is one of the Promoters/Directors of M/s Anmol International (P) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "M/s Anmol"). HUDCO had sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 440 Lakhs to the Appellant's Company M/s Anmol for takeover, renovation and additional construction of a hotel project at Rourkela, Sundargarh (Orissa) on 05/12/2006 against the security of mortgage of the project property i.e. Hotel property. First instalment of loan amounting to Rs.245 lakhs was released in March 2007. M/s. Anmol failed to adhere to the post disbursement conditions and committed default in the very first quarter i.e. 31st May 2007. Pursuant to classification of the account as NPA, the loan was recalled, and guarantees were enforced. Pursuant thereto Recovery Case bearing No. OA 381/2011, seeking recovery of claim of Rs. 5,09,61,573/-, was filed by HUDCO on 19/10/2011 before hon'ble DRT Cuttack against M/s Anmol and its Guarantor including the present Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra. The said case was disposed of by the Hon'ble DRT, Cuttack vide Judgement and Order 09/11/2016 and M/s Anmol and the Guarantor including Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra were directed to pay the claim amount along with pendent lite and future interest. Copy of DRT order is annexed as Annexure - V
3) Pursuant thereto, Recovery Proceeding being No. 87/2016 was instituted. As M/s. Anmol and its Guarantor including the Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra failed to honour the directions of the Recovery Officer (RO), DRT(Cuttack), HUDCO was directed by the Recovery Office, DRT to undertake the valuation of mortgaged properties through its empanelled Chartered Engineer and Registered Valuer and accordingly the Valuation Report of the Mortgaged Properties was obtained and the same was submitted to the Recovery Officer (RO), DRT (Cuttack). Valuation Report obtained in this regard is annexed as Annexure - VI.
Thereafter, the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT vide Order dated 07/01/2019 issued Proclamation of Sale of the mortgaged properties through Public E-auction Sale to be held on 04/02/2019. The E-auction notice was given wide publicity through Newspapers viz. Odiya Daily Dharitri, English Daily, Indian Express and also through Websites Auction Tigger and tenders govt.in. Accordingly, public E-auction sale of the mortgaged Hotel property on "AS IS WHERE IS BASIS" was conducted in online mode. One Mr. Suresh Kumar Agarwal was declared as the successful bidder in Page 6 of 10 the E-auction Sale. Pursuant thereto the highest bidder deposited bid amount of Rs. 5,83,32,000/- before RO, DRT Cuttack. RO, DRT Cuttack vide Order dt. 13/05/2019 directed Regional Chief, HUDCO Bhubaneswar Regional Office to deliver the ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE and CERTIFICATE OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY issued by the DRT along with documents/papers of the said properties to the auction purchaser as well as hand over the possession. Copy of the Sale Confirmation Order of the RO, DRT(Cuttack) is annexed as Annexure - VII
4) However, since the sale proceeds of these mortgaged properties were not sufficient to clear the entire decreetal dues, the recovery proceedings against the M/s Anmol and its Guarantor including the Appellant are still in progress in DRT, Cuttack for recovery of the balance decreetal dues. The Appellant and his company M/s Anmol have left no stone unturned to defeat the efforts of this Public Authority HUDCO to recover the dues which essentially is the Public Money The various litigations initiated between the Appellant/his Company M/s Anmol and HUDCO are enclosed in Annexure - VIII for kind information of the Hon'ble Commission.
Reply on Merit:
It is respectfully submitted that:
(i) Being a promoter/Director of the Company M/s Anmol, the Appellant, Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra and his Company are already in possession of those information, which the Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra has repeatedly been seeking through these RTI Application/Appeals (s).
M/s Anmol, by virtue of being borrowers and mortgagor of the property and the Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra being the Promoters/Director of M/s Anmol and Guarantor for the HUDCO loan and also as party to the Recovery Proceedings that has taken place before the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Cuttack Bench (Orissa) and consequently they are already in possession of the information regarding the details of the auction/sale of the mortgaged property and the area thereof which is evident from its own letter dated 09/08/2021 addressed to the Under Secretary to Govt. of India and the copy of the R.P No. 87 of 2016 filed by M/s Anmol before RO, DRT on 28/10/2021 annexed herewith collectively as Annexure - (IX(A) & IX (B)).
(ii) The valuation of the mortgaged property was done at the instance of the DRT and Sale of the mortgaged property was done by the Recovery Page 7 of 10 Officer, DRT Cuttack, in terms of the Recovery Certificate (RC) issued by DRT, Cuttack which contain the information sought by the Appellant and as party to these proceedings, the Appellant and his Company are already in possession of these information.
(iii) Despite of the aforesaid, the Appellant Shri Harbindar Singh Deengra was provided with the information that the mortgage property was sold by Recovery Officer, DRT on "as is where basis" based on the valuation report (supra) which gives all the details of the mortgage property including the area. The issue of the area of the property sold in auction has already been settled by the RO, DRT vide the order 19/04/2024 a copy of which is annexed herewith as Annexure - X and M/s Anmol represented by the Appellant herein is party to these proceedings.
(iv) For the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commission of the Office, the order dated 09/11/2016 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Cuttack and Order of the Confirmation of Sale dt. 13/05/2019 issued by the Recovery Office (RO)DRT, Cuttack along with Copy of the Valuation report are annexed herewith as (Annexure- V, VI & VII).
(V) From the aforesaid, the Hon'ble Commission may kindly notice that the Appellant was supplied with all the information he had sought vide his RTI Application dt. 30-06-2024 despite of the fact that this information would already have been in possession of the Appellant, being party to these litigations as the information is contained in the "Order of Sale"
and "the Valuation Report" and, in fact, it was so by the admission of M/s Anmol and the Appellant in their letter addressed to Under Secretary, Govt. of India and the R.P No. 87 of 2016 filed before the RO, DRT on 28/10/2021. The Appellant has been resorting to forum shopping as is evidence from the plethora of legal proceedings taken place in this case as listed out in Annexure VIII, some of which proceedings are still undergoing and the Appellant and his Company M/s Anmol are yet to pay fully the decretal dues which is a Public Money. Present proceedings before this Hon'ble Commission, is yet another attempt of the Appellant to misuse the process of law to thwart the effort of HUDCO to recover the Public Money.
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the present Appeal is liable to be disallowed on account of devoid of any merit and, therefore, the Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to pass a suitable Order disposing of the present Appeal."Page 8 of 10
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant sought information relating to the built-up area of property mortgaged, auctioned, and handed over to the auction purchaser in relation to a project of M/s Anmol International Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant, being a promoter of M/s Anmol and a party to litigation (OA 381/2011 and RP 87/2016 before DRT, Cuttack), is in possession or has access to the very documents sought i.e. valuation reports, mortgage deeds, and sale confirmation.
10. The fact that the sale was conducted on "as-is-where-is" basis, as confirmed by the DRT and as communicated in the RTI reply, implies that the entire property as mortgaged (including any superstructure) was sold without further disaggregation or mapping of built-up areas. The respondent stated that all the arguments raised by the appellant before the Commission have already been discussed by the DRT in its order. The respondent has filed detailed written submission dated 15.04.2025 disclosing complete facts of the case and a copy of the same along with annexures are provided to the appellant.
11. It appears the Appellant is attempting to reopen settled matters or create grounds to challenge DRT's sale process through RTI application. The RTI Act is a tool for transparency and accountability, not a substitute for civil litigation or grievance redress mechanisms. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) Page 9 of 10
12. Perusal of the records reveal that the respondent has complied with the obligations under the RTI Act by providing all available and relevant information as maintained in their records. The CPIO has acted reasonably, and no mala fide or obstruction of access to information is found. Therefore, the intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, HUDCO Ltd, Core 7-A, HUDCO Bhawan, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 10 of 10 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)