Jitendra J. Mehta vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 March, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jitendra J. Mehta vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 March, 2022

1. The appellant filed the above mentioned two appeals against the CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, seeking information regarding his locker account no. 35 and related information. Both the appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings:

Page 1 of 8

1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.05.2019 & 29.01.2020 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.12.2018 & 29.03.2019 and first appeal dated 15.02.2019 & 03.11.2019:-

File No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/104725  Give details in writing regarding the information of rules/procedure in force at the time of breaking locker of your Bank under RTI Act.

(i) As per record of the Bank, Locker No. 35 was alloted to any other person on dated 26.08.1995 therefore it is hereby requested to give details regarding on which date and in which branch the said locker no. 35 was broken.

(ii) Before breaking locker in Bank, how information is given to main holder of the said locker or joint holder if any and which rules have been decided by Bank regarding it. Give information regarding it.

(iii) How the Bank has provided information to the account holder and where such record is maintained? And where such record is at present maintained? Give present name and address of the said office/Branch-Department.

(iv) Whether there is any strategy of your Bank to public advertisement in newspaper before breaking locker or not? If there is any rule/strategy then in which paper such advertisement is given and give name and address of paper.

(v) Give name, address and phone number of the Advocate of Bank who was present at the time of breaking locker no. 35.

(vi) Whether there is any system to keep two independent witness present at the time of breaking locker or not? If there is such strategy/rule then give name, address and phone number of such witness who were present at the time of breaking locker no.

35.

(vii) After breaking locker, if any inventory is kept regarding the items kept in locker then where is inventory record is kept and give name and address of such office- Department.

Page 2 of 8

(viii) In whose custody such copy of inventory and the articles brought out of locker is kept. Give name and address of such office-Department.

(ix) Provide true copy of necessary pages having rules to break open locker and name of bank which framed rules to break open locker from bank.

(x) Name and address of officers of the day when the said locker no. 35 was broken and their present designation and address.

(xi) How was Nagarwada Branch, merged in Bhutdizampa Branch and give information regarding the date of work started regarding account holders/lockers of Nagarwada Branch.

File No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2019/129843  Bank of Baroda, Nagarwada Branch has been merged in our Branch. The appellant had opened Locker No. 35 on 06.10.1987 in Bank of Baroda, Nagarwada Branch and he was joint holder in the said locker. The name of Ramanlal Babardas Doshi was first name in the said locker and in joint holder there were names of Hemantbhai Jagdishchandra Mehta and Jitendra Jagdishchandra Mehta. The said locker was of Godrej company and its key number was 20 and he had its original key. The appellant came to know from bank on inquiry that the said locker was running in the name of another person. In such circumstances you are requested to give true copies of following documents immediately.

(xii) Who was manager of Bank of Baroda, Nagarwada Branch in year 1987 and his name, address and at present on which designation he was and his full address.

(xiii) To break open the said locker no. 35, the locker holder might have been informed by Registered A.D. and courier therefore office copy of the said letter.

(xiv) On which day has the said locker been broken and what inventory was done regarding it and the name and address of the Advocate who was remained present at the time of breaking open the said locker and in which two officer of Bank the said locker was broken, give their names and address and if there are two independent witnesses while breaking open locker, give their names and address.

Page 3 of 8

(xv) Before breaking open the said locker, who visited personally at the address of Holder of locker and when and the copy of report filed by him in Bank. (xvi) If any advertisement was published in newspaper before breaking upon the locker then give its copy.

(xvii) When the locker was broken open, on that day what articles were found from the said locker, give its information and who has at present custody of the said article which were found from the said locker.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed applications dated 27.12.2018 & 29.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 15.02.2019 & 03.11.2019. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.03.2019 and 3.12.2019 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2019 provided revised reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeals dated 17.05.2019 & 29.01.2020 before this Commission which are under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.05.2019 and 29.1.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO as well as the FAA was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.01.2019 replied that information sought was not traceable due to old records (32 years old). He further informed that as per their records last allotment of locker was done on 26.08.1995 to another customer. The FAA vide his order dated 16.03.2019 directed the CPIO to re-examine the matter and provide suitable reply to the RTI application within 21 days. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 06.04.2019 denied the information on the ground of third-party information and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Hearing on 29.12.2020:

Page 4 of 8

4.1. The appellant along with his representative Mr. Mohsin Hakim and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Vrushali Kambli, CPIO and Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra, Law Officer, Bank of Baroda, Vadodara attended the hearing through video conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 19.01.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant claimed that locker in question belong to him along with other joint account holders. However, the respondent during the course of hearing submitted that locker No. 35 which the appellant claimed to be his own was opened in 1987 and the records relating to the same were not traceable. They further informed that as per their record, last allotment of locker was done on 26.08.1995 to another customer and therefore they also claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. It appears that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory, incomplete and evasive. The respondent could have obtained the relevant papers from the appellant and provided proper reply/information to the appellant within the stipulated time. But, the respondent failed to do so, and because of evasive and perfunctory reply of the respondent, the matter was escalated to the level of the Commission. In view of this, Shri S T Bhutia, the then CPIO and Ms. Vrushali Kambli, the present CPIO are show caused as to why penalty under the provisions of section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations and as well as his attendance in the next date of hearing. All the written submissions (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meantime, the appellant is advised to submit copy of relevant papers proving that locker in question belong to him and thereafter the respondent is directed to search the records thoroughly and provide complete information/reply to the appellant in both the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 24.11.2021 Page 5 of 8 4.3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sonam T Bhutia, the then CPIO and Ms. Dhushali Kambli, present CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, attended the hearing through video conference.

4.4 The Commission passed the following directions on 20.12.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent during the course of hearing brought out that during the search conducted by them for the second time they found that another locker no. 87 was held in the name of the appellant and the same was jointly held by both the appellant and Mr. Hemant J Mehta. Further, the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that locker no. 35 (claimed to have been opened on 06.10.1987) was allotted to him. In view of the absence of any other records, it is essential that the locker register relied upon by both parties may be produced before the Commission on the next date of hearing. The respondent is directed that an official of their branch be deputed to visit the New Delhi and produce the records i.e the locker register for the material period discussed as above from 1987 to 1995 and onwards (also reflecting the closure of locker no. 87 on 19.09.2018) while attending the hearing at CIC on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matters are adjourned."

Hearing on 17.02.2022

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sonam T Bhutia, the then CPIO and Ms. Dhushali Kambli, present CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Vadodara, attended the hearing through video conference and Shri Mithilesh Kumar, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bhutdizampa Branch, Vadodara, attended the hearing in person. 5.1. The respondents while defending their case inter alia submitted that in pursuance to the Commission's order they had brought the original register for locker no. 35 and locker no. 87 for the period 1995 onwards. They further explained that the appellant had not submitted any documents in respect of the locker no.35 claimed to be opened on 06.10.1987. The respondent also submitted their written explanations dated 21.10.2021 in response to the Commission's order dated 19.01.2021. Pursuant to the last order, the matter was re- examined at their end and in absence of any records with respect to closure/break open of Page 6 of 8 the locker no. 35 by the appellant/respondent, the information was denied under provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act as the said locker no. 35 was in the name of third party as per the Bank's record from the year 1995. After receipt of Commission's order dated 08.09.2021, they had again arranged to search the records of the branch extensively but no record (prior to 1995) with respect to locker no. 35 was found in the branch. However, during the search of records another locker no. 87 had been found which was allotted on 23.12.1995 in Nagarwada Branch in the name of the brothers Mr. Amrish J Mehta, Mr. Jitendra J Mehta (appellant) and Mr. Hemant J Mehta. The respondent further stated that the Nagarwada Branch was merged in Bhutdizampa Branch in the year 2003 and the name of Mr. Amrish J Mehta was deleted from the locker account on the request letter of Mr. Jitendra J Mehta (appellant) and Mr. Hemant J Mehta dated 10.09.2009 after the demise of Mr. Amrish J Mehta on 19.02.2009. The respondent stated that the death certificate of Mr. Amrish J Mehta was issued on 25.02.2009 by the competent authority, was on record of the branch. Further, the aforementioned locker no. 87 was surrendered and closed on 19.09.2018 by the appellant and Mr. Hemant J Mehta jointly vide their letter dated 18.09.2018 addressed to the Branch Manager of Nagarwada/Bhutdizampa Branch. Therefore, it was implied that the appellant was conscious and vigilant but on no occasion he had raised any query regarding status of the locker no. 35 in issue. The respondent reiterated that it was also a possibility that the locker no. 35 lied empty and the appellant surrendered the locker before allotment of that locker to another customer in 1995, hence, there was no record maintained for locker no. 35. The appellant had sought 32 years old information and that the record was not available in the branch. Therefore, as per the register available for the period 1995 onwards the appellant was not the owner for locker no. 35 but it was a different individual and they had replied to the appellant correctly as per their records.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent produced original register for locker no. 35 and locker no. 87 for the period 1995 onwards. Perusal of the records revealed that for locker key no. 55 was assigned to locker no. 35, which was allotted to a different individual owner i.e. Shri Lakshmi N. Shah, who continued to be the present owner so far. Further, another locker no. 88 was assigned to the appellant and three brothers Page 7 of 8 besides locker no. 87. However, there was no evidence that the locker no. 35 was ever assigned to them. That being so, there appears to be no deliberate concealing of information on the part of the respondent and that they had given due reply as per the records available under their custody. Therefore, no mala fide is attributable to the CPIOs and the show cause notices issued to Shri S T Bhutia, the then CPIO and Ms. Vrushali Kambli, the present CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 14.03.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Central Public Information Office, Bank of Baroda, 5th Baroda Bhavan (Zonal Office), R.C. Dutt road, Alkapuri Vadodara, Gujarat-390007

2. Central Public Information Office, Bank of Baroda, 5th Baroda Bhavan (Zonal Office), R.C. Dutt road, Alkapuri Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 (For forwarding to Shri S.P. Bhutia, the then CPIO and Ms. Dushali Kambli, CPIO) First Appellate Authority, Bank of Baroda, 5th Baroda Bhavan (Zonal Office), R.C. Dutt road, Alkapuri Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 JITENDRA J. MEHTA Page 8 of 8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission