Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala vs Department Of Financial Services on 18 September, 2025

                                    के ीय सूचना आयोग
                           Central Information Commission
                                बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                            Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOFSR/A/2024/122062

Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
CPIO: The Jammu and
Kashmir Bank, Gurgaon,                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Haryana

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 27.03.2024             FA         : 13.05.2024             SA     : 03.07.2024

CPIO : 17.04.2024            FAO : 30.05.2024                    Hearing : 09.09.2025


Date of Decision: 18.09.2025
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 Please note that I am one of the sons and natural legal heirs of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala (Copy of my self-attested PAN as Identity proof enclosed herewith and marked as Letter "A"). I am also a Joint Executor to the last will of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala (Copy of Will of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala and Probate order enclosed herewith for your ready reference and marked as Letter "B").

All movable and immovable assets of my father were bequeathed in favour of the Joint Family HUF being M/s Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF and my eldest brother Mr. Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala became the Karta of the said HUF. In this context, the said Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF is holding one General Savings Bank A/C No. *******3458 with your Bank's R.N. Mukherjee Road Branch, Kolkata. The said account was in a dormant status and as per the RBI rules and guidelines, the KYC of all corparceners (including my KYC) was updated with your R.N. Mukherjee Road Branch by the Karta vide his letter dated 06.08.2018, post which the account was restored to active status.

In my capacity as one of the Executors to the Estate of Late Shri Bishwanath Ganeriwala and also as one of the named coparceners of M/s Bishwanath Ganeriwala HUF, I had requested the below-mentioned information from the Branch Head of the respective Branch vide my letter dated 11.03.2024 (Receipted copy of the request letter enclosed herewith and marked as Letter "C"), but the concerned branch has not provided any reply whatsoever. I would therefore, request you to let me have the following information with regards to our above- mentioned Account held with your branch:

a) Kindly let me know when the KYC was last updated for the above account.

b) Kindly let me know if KYC of the coparceners has been obtained by your branch with respect to the above-mentioned account.

c) Kindly let me know who are the coparceners of the above-mentioned Account number as per your banking records.

d) Kindly let me know the date on which you have last received my KYC / Identity proof with respect to the above-mentioned account.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

a) That despite repeated requests and reminders of Bank, none of the members of HUF, Karta as well as coparceners have submitted their KYC documents for updating the same in bank record and last reminders were issued by the branch on 30.03.2024.

b) That None of the coparceners have submitted any of documents pertain to their respective KYC. Needless to mention that it is duty of the Karta and all adult coparceners of the HUF to apprise the bank from time to time about their latest developments in the list of the coparceners as every new birth in the HUF entail to be member of the HUF.

c) That till date none of the adult members/coparceners as well as Karta of the above mentioned HUF have provided the latest list of the coparcener/s or declaration thereof.

d) That the above mentioned KYC documents (PAN card and Election voter card) of the next Karta (Mr. Pardip Kumar Ganeriwala) submitted in the year 2018 presently available with branch has been attached for your information

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.05.2024 stated as under: -

"Refer to your RTI First appeal dated 13-05-2024. In this regard the bank vide letter dated 17-04-2024 has provided detailed information towards the satisfaction.

Needless to mention that every coparcener in HUF has to approach the branch through its Karta, as Karta is the only principal officer/agent to deal with the account and it is his prime duty to abreast the branch about the latest development in the HUF.

As such you are advised to seek any information about list of coparceners w.r.t any account of HUF though Karta of M/S Bishwanath Ganeriwala (HUF).

The First appeal is not supported by any Postal order/Demand Draft."

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.07.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Rajesh Sharma, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent is incorrect and misleading. He contended that the averred account was maintained with the bank since 1989 and it was unlikely that the same was maintained without list of coparceners.

7. The respondent while defending their case reiterated their initial response and clarified that the KYC documents of only the karta were available with the bank. Accordingly, they had provided point-wise information to the appellant, available on the bank's records.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate response has been given by the CPIO, as per records available under their custody. Moreover, the appellant is indirectly challenging the correctness of the reply in the instant appeal, and no action is warranted in that regard. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 18.09.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, Zonal Office : Delhi, Plot No. 132-134, Sector - 44, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002 2 Dipak Kumar Ganeriwala Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)