Central Information Commission
G Anil Kumar vs Ecgc Limited on 26 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos : CIC/ECGCL/A/2023/105478
CIC/ECGCL/A/2023/145535
G ANIL KUMAR .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Asstt. General Manager ECGC
Limited, Express Towers,10th
Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021
PIO,
ECGC Limited, Express
Towers,10th Floor, Nariman
Point, Mumbai - 400021 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 23-04-2024
Date of Decision : 25-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21-09-2022
CPIO replied on : 18-10-2022
First appeal filed on : 25-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 22-11-2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25-01-2023 & 14-11-2023
Page 1 of 7
CIC/ECGCL/A/2023/105478
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21-09-2022 seeking the following information regarding Current Account No. xxxxxxx with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu.:
"The bank has debited from my above account towards ECGC premium from 2010 onwards.
Please furnish the following information.
1. For what purpose the premium was debited from my accounts and paid to the ECGC.
2. Whether the premium was paid for securing the pre-shipment of the goods.
3. Whether, the Bank has made any claim due to the failure of the foreign buyer to issue LC to the bank in time.
4. Whether the Bank had made any claim to the ECGC for the non-receipt of LC from the foreign buyer in time.
5. Please furnish the total amount of coverage of the ECGC on my account.
6. Please furnish the period of coverage of the ECGC coverage ie. from which period to which period the coverage was made."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 18-10-2022 stating as under:
"1. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act, however being an account holder of the Tami Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, you may raise the query with your banker.
2. As above
3. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
4. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
5. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
6. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25-10-2022. The FAA vide its order dated 22-11-2022, held as under:-
"1. We have no information on this.
2. The company has received premium on account of both Pre-shipment and post shipment from the bank under our respective covers issued to the Bank.Page 2 of 7
3&4. No claim filed by the Bank as per database. 5&6. The information sought is exempted under Section 8 (e) of the RTI Act 2005."
CIC/ECGCL/A/2023/145535 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21-09-2023 seeking the following information regarding Current Account No. xxxxxxxxx with the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu:
"The bank has debited from my above account towards ECGC premium from 2010 onwards.
Please furnish the following information.
1. For what purpose the premium was debited from my accounts and paid to the ECGC.
2. Whether the premium was paid for securing the pre-shipment of the goods.
3. Whether, the Bank has made any claim due to the failure of the foreign buyer to issue LC to the bank in time.
4. Whether the Bank had made any claim to the ECGC for the non-receipt of LC from the foreign buyer in time.
5. Please furnish the total amount of coverage of the ECGC on my account.
6. Please furnish the period of coverage of the ECGC coverage i.e. from which period to which period the coverage was made."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 18-10-2023 stating as under:
"1. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act, however being an account holder of the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, you may raise the query with your banker.
2. As above
3. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
4. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
5. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
6. It is exempted under section 8(e) of the RTI Act."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25-10-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 22-11-2023, held as under:-
Page 3 of 7"1. We have no information on this.
2. The company has received premium on account of both Pre-shipment and post shipment from the bank under our respective covers issued to the Bank.
3&4. No claim filed by the Bank as per database. 5&6. The information sought is exempted under Section 8 (e) of the RTI Act 2005"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference. Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, AGM & CPIO and Ms. Rachna Babelwal, DGM & FAA present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his above- mentioned RTI applications and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Appellant requested the Commission to intervene and direct the Respondent to provide complete information as per his RTI application. The Appellant further reiterated the contents of his written submissions, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"I am an exporter of raw rubber. I availed packing credit loan for obtaining foreign exchange for the export of goods. 3. To cover the pre-shipment and post-shipment of goods I had Insurance policy with the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC). 4. The bank has debited money from my above account towards ECGC premium from 2010 onwards. Since the Letter of Credit is not received by the Bank from the foreign buyer, the Bank is mandatorily bound to invoke the ECGC claim, which the Bank failed to do so."Page 4 of 7
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 18.10.2022 and 22.11.2022, complete point-wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent further submitted that they have categorically informed the Appellant that "you may consider approaching your Bank in respect of various debits made in your account and also refer to the Sanction Letter issued in respect of credit facilities sanctioned/availed."
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not a party to the ECGC coverage.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the CPIO on his RTI application.
In response, the Respondent vide its letters dated 18.10.2022 and 22.11.2022 provided point-wise reply/information to the Appellant wherein factual position has been informed to the Appellant.
It further appears that the Appellant in his second appeal is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking information as envisaged under the RTI Act and has also been challenging the correctness of the information provided. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) Page 5 of 7 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under: 0 "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) No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The above-mentioned second appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 7 Copy To:
The FAA ECGC ltd Regd. office:
ECGC Bhawan CTS No. 393/1 to 45 M V Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400069 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)