Ajay Kumar Pandey vs Bank Of Baroda on 6 July, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajay Kumar Pandey vs Bank Of Baroda on 6 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.02.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.04.2021 and first appeal dated 23.09.2021:-

 Bank of Baroda, Raitha Branch, Village Raitha, Tehsil ka Tahlab, Lucknow-

226201, on 26.11.2020 granted a loan to one Mohammd Ahmad S/o Ramzan Ali, R/o-17, Mirdahi Tola, Palenhda, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, by mortgaging part of agricultural land of Khatauni No. 131, comprising 8 Bigha 11 Bishva 15 Bishvanshi of some other Mohammd Ahmad S/o Ramzan Ali, R/o-17, Mirdahi Tola, Sitapur, District Sitapur-261001, situated at Village Palehnda. Since the above tenure holder Mohammd Ahmad S/o Ramzan Ali, R/o-17, Mirdahi Tola, Sitapur, District Sitapur-261001, died in January, 1995 by executing will on Page 1 of 6 01.07.1994, in favour of appellant by bequeathing his agricultural land and house also of Lucknow to the appellant. Therefore, when the appellant learnt about such fraud in Raitha branch then the appellant had sent a legal notice dated 25.01.2021, to the Raitha Branch Manager, Zonal and Head Office of Bank of Baroda, through speed post with forwarding same by e-mail. Thereafter, on 16.02.2021, Raitha Branch Manager had sent a property De mortgage letter to Sub Registrar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, by mentioning for returning and paying of entire loan amount of Rs. 9,63,000/- with interest by the debtor and consequently closing of the said loan account and releasing of 2.172 hectare land.

The said letter at the bottom bears the initials of Branch Manager, the signature of Mohammd Ahmad in Hindi and signatures of two witnesses namely Suman Bihari and Rupesh Mishra are also made in English. The said letter also annexed with two non-judicial e-stamp papers of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 110/- purchased by Mohammad Ahmad himself on 23.02.2021 and 24.02.2021 containing the signature of Mohammad Ahmad in Hindi with photo. Consequently, Sub Registrar, Sarojini Nagar registered the same de mortgage on 24.02.2021 in Block No. 1,, volume no. 6112, page Ops. 79-86 at Sl. No. 7503. While Khatauni No. 131, is still showing the mortgage of part land in Sarojini Nagar Tehsil Lucknow.

(i) Give copies of all papers from first page to last page of loan account file and also make available same for inspection by the applicant.

(ii) Give full names and addresses of the witnesses as well as Branch Manager who signed the mortgage and de mortgage papers of the loan account and also refused to receive R.T.I. Application sent on 10.04.2021, in Raitha Branch.

(iii) Give copy of Non Encumbrance Report/Certificate issued by Advocate on demand of Branch Manager or Mohammd Ahmad for granting and availing the loan facility.

Page 2 of 6

(iv) Give CCTV recordings of raitha Branch from November, 2020, or when first time Mohammd Ahmad had entered into the raitha Branch to the till date.

(v) Give the full details of receiving of Notice dt. 25.01.2021, by Raitha Branch as well by others and actions taken on the same by Bank of Baroda till date with supplying of reports and copies, if any, made and passed by concerned employees and officers of the bank.

(vi) Give full details of loan account with the statement of account, money withdrawing & depositing vouchers/slips copies.

(vii) Give copy of the letter sent by Raitha Branch to Tehsildar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, for registering de mortgage of the agriculture land in Khatauni No.131.

(viii) Who is responsible in Bank of Baroda for still showing the mortgage in the Khatauni No.131, in Tehsil Sarojinmi Nagar, Lucknow.

(ix) Who is responsible in Bank of Baroda for not registering the F.I.R. against Mohammd Ahamd and his gang who defrauded and cheated the Bank and Society by mortgaging the property of deceased Mohammd Ahmad, S/O Ramzan Ali, R/O 17, Mirdahi Tola, Sitapur-261001, who died in 1995.

(x) Who is responsible in Bank of Baroda for not handing over Fraudster Mohammd Ahmad and his gang to the Police when Mohammnd Ahmad etc. again came to Raitha Branch and met the Branch Manager allegedly to deposit Rs.963000/-

with signing of de mortgage papers on 16.02.2021, and submitting of E-Stamps on 23.02.2021 and 24.02.2021, also.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.04.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.09.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order.

Page 3 of 6

Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 06.02.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.02.2022 inter alia on the grounds that no reply was received from the respondent. 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. Perusal of the records submitted by the appellant while filing the second appeal dated 06.02.2022 reveals that neither the CPIO nor the FAA provided any information or any reply to the appellant.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pramod Kumar, Regional Head and CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Lucknow, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent bank had sanctioned a loan to one Mr. Mohammad Ahmad by mortgaging land which was in the name of another Mr. Mohammad who, in fact, had bequeathed that land in appellant's favour through will. He further alleged that there had been illegal transfer of title of the agricultural land i.e. mortgaged property, by impersonation and with connivance of bank officials. He further stated that the original owner of the land died in January, 1995 by executing will on 01.07.1994, in his favour and he had submitted the concerned death certificate. Further, the respondent had not responded to his RTI application, till the date of hearing.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had failed to establish any relationship with Mr. Mohammad Ahmad, whose account details had been sought in the RTI application. Therefore, the information concerning third party could not be disclosed to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that no reply was given by the respondent within stipulated time limit. Further, during the course of hearing the respondent claimed that the information sought by the appellant was related to third party. However, the appellant claimed that loan sanctioned to Mr. Mohammad Ahmad was granted against the Page 4 of 6 mortgaged property which was in his (Appellant's) name and was bequeathed in his favour through a will. Therefore, in absence of any reply or reasoned written submissions by the respondent, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the appellant was entitled to the information or not. Further, a period of over two years have elapsed and the respondent had not given any reply to the appellant so far. In view of the above, Shri Pramod Kumar, present CPIO and the then CPIO (15.04.2021), are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the requisite information. Shri Pramod Kumar, present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal.

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

Sd/-


                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 05.07.2023
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 Baroda, Lucknow Zone,
Baroda House, V 23 Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
(Up)- 226010
(present CPIO is requested to serve
The copy of the order to the then CPIO and
Shri Pramod Kumar, present CPIO
And secure written explanations)

                                                                                Page 5 of 6
 First Appellate Authority
Bank Of Baroda,
Lucknow Zone, Baroda House,
V 23 Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow (Up)- 226010

Shri Pramod Kumar, present CPIO
Bank Of Baroda, Lucknow Zone,
Baroda House, V 23 Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
(Up)- 226010

The CPIO
(for serving to the then CPIO
As on 15.4.2021)
Bank Of Baroda, Lucknow Zone,
Baroda House, V 23 Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
(Up)- 226010

Shri Ajay kumar Pandey




                                   Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission