Byragoni Sreenivas Goud vs Allahabad Bank on 5 April, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Byragoni Sreenivas Goud vs Allahabad Bank on 5 April, 2021

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in his complaint dated 03.10.2018 due to alleged non-supply of information vide his RTI application dated 02.08.2018are as under:

 Take necessary action against the CPIO as per section 20 of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an RTI application dated 02.08.2018, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, Allahabad Bank (now Indian Bank), Industrial Finance Branch, Fort, Mumbai, seeking inter alia the following information: -

Page 1 of 6

(i) Provide complete information on the grounds which made Allahabad bank to disburse a secured loan of Rs. 335.5 crore, Rs. 335.5 crore, Rs. 156.06 crore, Rs.

280 crore and Rs. 50 crores to KSL & Industries Ltd, banks half yearly inspection reports with assets mortgage details and corporate guarantee provided according to reports as submitted online Form 8 in MCA.

(ii) The charge Records available with MCA of M/s KSL & industries Ltd. charged modified on 20.3.2006 vide SRN no. A00687780, charged id no. 10002930 charge holder of Allahabad bank, industrial finance branch in amounting of Rs. 50 crores the company has mentioned in charge document, nature and description of modifying the charge is deed of simple mortgage, Company's immovable property viz., Land and Building situated at Nagpur is now reconfirmed and registered to secure TL Facility of Rs. 50 crore on pari passu basis with Indian Overseas Bank for their limit of Rs. 75 crore, please provide if any letter/agreement/ any supporting documentary evidence regarding pari passu basis between Allahabad Bank and Indian Overseas Bank which is attached to charged document.

(iii) The charge records available with MCA of KSL & Industries Ltd. charge created on 07.02.2006, modified on 29.06.2006 and secured loan was satisfied on 20.02.2007 vide SRN no. A10603215, charged ID-80008106, charge holder of Allahabad Bank Industrial finance branch an amounting to Rs. 1000000000/-. The company has mentioned in charge document particulars of property charged modifying the charge is additionally secured by mortgage property at plot no. A- 354, Dombivali Ind Area, Dist. Thane.

Please provide the property documentary evidence and agreement regarding the property modifying the charge for which additionally secured property at plot no. A-354, Dombivali Ind Area, Dist. Thane as mortgage mentioned in the charge document.

(iv) Complete information on if any impounding of Passport procedures taken by the concerned department on Shri Pravin Kumar Ramprathap Tayal and his Page 2 of 6 accompanies in wake of Vijay Mallya and latest Nirav Modi running away from India issue.

(v) Complete information on any attachment of properties of willful defaulter Shri Pravin Kumar Ramprathap Tayal and his accompanies under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(vi) Complete information of list of the companies on the secured loans provided by Allahabad Bank or as part of consortium of Banks to Tayal Group of Companies other than KSL & IND Ltd.

(vii) Any other related information.

(viii) File noting on the movement of this RTI Application.

2. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application. Aggrieved by this, the complainant filed complaint dated 03.10.2018, before this Commission.

3. The complainant has filed a complaint dated 3.10.2018 inter alia on the ground that no response was received from the respondent.

4. The CPIO did not reply to the RTI application.

Hearing on 05.08.2020 4.1. The complainant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Jitender Kaswan, Chief Manager, Indian Bank (formerly Allahabad Bank), Bandra attended the hearing through video conference. Interim order dated 12.10.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observation and directions on "6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observed that no reply to the RTI application was given by the respondent even after lapse of around two and half year from the date of filing of this RTI application. The respondent during the hearing Page 3 of 6 claimed that no RTI application was received by them. It is noted that the complainant had enclosed a copy of postal receipt by which he had sent the RTI application to the respondent's Industrial Finance Branch, Fort, Mumbai. It may not be out of place to mention that the presumption is always in favour of the fact that the letter which is posted to the addressee is received by the addressee, if not returned back. Hence, submissions made by the respondent are not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to Shri Satish Kumar, the then CPIO and Shri S S P Roy, the present CPIO, Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Zonal Office, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not responding to the RTI application. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show-cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks."

Hearing on 10.03.2021

5. The complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Gopal Sethi, Deputy Zonal Manager representing present CPIO attended the hearing through video conference and Shri Satish Kumar, the then CPIO, Indian Bank, attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that no RTI application was received by CPIO as same was addressed to the branch, hence, reply to the same could not be sent to the complainant within the stipulated time. Thereafter, the complainant filed a first appeal on 03.10.2018 which was disposed of by the FAA vide its order dated 09.11.2018 and directed the CPIO to dispose of the RTI application. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 14.11.2018 informed that information sought pertained to loan sanctioned to third party i.e., M/s KSL & industries Ltd., held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, they also Page 4 of 6 informed that the complainant was not connected anyway with the account in question and he also failed to brought out any larger public interest warranting disclosure of such information. It was further stated that facts regarding disposal of the RTI application dated 02.08.2018 was neither brought by the complainant nor by the representative of the bank in the previous hearing held on 05.08.2020 due to which show cause notice was issued. They expressed their unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the Commission in this matter.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the RTI application was not received by the CPIO, no reply could be sent to the complainant within the stipulated time. However, in compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO had already replied to the RTI application vide their letter dated 14.11.2018. The aforesaid fact that the reply given by the CPIO was not brought out either by the complainant nor by the respondent in the previous hearing held on 05.08.2020 and in the absence of that it was presumed that no reply was given by the respondent and show cause notice was issued. However, during the course of hearing it was reveals that due reply has already been given by the respondent vide their letter dated 14.11.2018. Further, in view of the submissions made by the respondent, there appears to be no mala fide on their part and in absence of any mala fide it would not be appropriate to impose penalty on the CPIOs. Accordingly, the show cause notices issued to Shri Satish Kumar, the then CPIO and Shri S S P Roy, the present CPIO, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, are hereby dropped. With the above observation, the complaint is closed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date:05.04.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Page 5 of 6 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

INDIAN BANK Zonal Office, 18th Floor, Maker Towers 'F' CuffeParade, Mumbai - 400005 (EARLIER ALLAHABADBANK) THE F.A.A., INDIAN BANK Zonal Office, 18th Floor, Maker Towers 'F' CuffeParade, Mumbai - 400005 CPIO :

1. Sh. S.S.P ROY (C.P.I.O) INDIAN BANK, Zonal Office, 18th Floor, Maker Towers 'F' Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005 (EARLIER ALLAHABAD BANK)

2. Sh. S.S.P ROY (C.P.I.O) INDIAN BANK, Zonal Office, 18th Floor, Maker Towers 'F' Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. SATISH KUMAR) BYRAGONI SREENIVAS GOUD Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission