Adishwar Jain vs Punjab National Bank on 10 November, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Adishwar Jain vs Punjab National Bank on 10 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 23.01.2018 and first appeal dated 05.03.2018:

• Appellant sought documents relating to SARFAESI matter before the Court of District Magistrate in the matter of Punjab National Bank v Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 12.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.03.218. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

Page 1 of 4

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 12.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent had not provided the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2018 replied that the appellant had sought the information in individual capacity as Director of the company and such information could only be provided to the authorized representative of the company. In absence of a Board resolution, the information could not be provided to the appellant.

Hearing on 05.05.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar, CPIO & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 11.05.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, accedes to the request for adjournment raised by the appellant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 29.09.2020:

5. The appellant along with his advocate, Sarabjit Singh and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Chief Manager & CPIO and Shri Harish Chauhan, Manager(Legal), Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia argued that the respondent bank had received the copies of orders passed by the District Magistrate pertaining to SARFAESI proceedings in Punjab National Bank v Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. However, they being the custodian of the information did not provide the information. The appellant further submitted that he was a party to the proceedings and was entitled to be served upon a copy of the order.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply dated 12.02.2018 submitted that the appellant had sought information in the individual capacity of being Director of a Company. Therefore, it was mandatory on his part to procure and furnish a copy of Board Resolution in his favour for enabling the bank to disclose the requisite information. Further, the documents including the certified copies of orders relating to the SARFAESI matter was available on records of the District Magistrate's Office and the bank was not the custodian of the information.

Page 2 of 4

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant sought information which was in the custody of District Magistrate viz documents relating to SARFAESI matter before the Court of District Magistrate in the matter of Punjab National Bank v Sundesh Springs Pvt. Ltd. The documents which are part of court proceedings before any court are public documents and the same may be procured by following the procedure in vogue in that court. Thus the respondent bank may not be the custodian of the record. Moreover, the appellant has failed to establish that he was not a third party as he failed to procure board resolution. It may not be out of place to mention the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of Gujarat:

"We do not find any merit in the above submission and that such cumbersome procedure has to be adopted for furnishing the information/certified copies of the documents. When there is an effective machinery for having access to the information or obtaining certified copies which, in our view, is a very simple procedure i.e. filing of an application/affidavit with requisite court fee and stating the reasons for which the certified copies are required, we do not find any justification for invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act and adopt a cumbersome procedure. This would involve wastage of both time and fiscal resources which the preamble of the RTI Act itself intends to avoid."

6.1. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission notes that the appellant has an alternative effective machinery to obtain the documents by approaching the Tribunal. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.02.2018 and the information may be made available only if a copy of Board Resolution is provided by the appellant. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

SD/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date:04.11.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) ( आर. सीताराम मू त) Page 3 of 4 उप पंजीयक Deputy Registrar ( ) 011-26181927 (०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 THE F.A.A, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, 5, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana - 141 001 ADISHWAR JAIN Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission