Central Information Commission
Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 19 December, 2023
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2021/114766
Pooja V Shah ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 15.01.2020 FA : 13.11.2020 SA : 05.04.2021
CPIO : 21.10.2020 FAO : 23.12.2020 Hearing : 14.12.2023
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.01.2020 seeking the following information:-
(i) Provide the date of filing application to Magistrate court for taking possession of our above 2 flats under police protection etc.
(ii) Provide the date when Magistrate court passed order allowing BOI to take possession of our above 2 flats in RNA ROYALE PARK.Page 1 of 7
(iii) Dates when BOI filed recovery suit in DRT court against RNA GROUP including our above 2 flats and the order passed by DRT COURT allowing BOI to take possession of our above 2 flats.
(iv) Date when BOI received order from Honorable National Commission(NC) dtd 14.07.2017 as detailed in para 4 above and certified copy of the Inward Register showing the date of receiving of this order
(v) a) Provide information whether the fact that the above 2 flats were under the injunction order of the Honorable National Commission as per the above order of t4.7.20L7 as informed by the Honorable National Commission to the Bank, was informed to the DRT COURT AND MAGISTRATE COURT ? (b) lf it was informed, provide certified copy of the documents showing that BOI had approached the above 2 courts with clean hands informing the above courts about the injunction order on these 2 flats as per the order dtd 14.7.2017 received by the Bank. (c) lf the above information was suppressed from the above 2 courts, not informed to these courts, pl provide that information specifically. (d) lf the above information was suppressed from the above 2 courts, not informed to the above two courts and BOI has completely avoided to inform the above facts 2 the above 2 courts, provide the reason for such policy decision which has affected the rights of this housewife in the above 2 flats. This is mandatorily required u/s- 4(1) (c) & 4(1)(d) of the RTI ACT as reiterated by the Honorable Supreme court as detailed in para 16 below under Explanation to assist PlO.
(vi) Complete information about putting the above sought information on the website of the bank as required u/s- (4) (l) of the RTI Act.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.10.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 2 of 7"i) The application for taking possession of mortgaged flats was filed before CMM Mumbai in the year 2016.
ii) The CMM vide order dated 04.08.2016 allowed for taking the possession of secured assets.
iii) The Recovery Suit filed on 24.06.2016 before DRT-2, Mumbai against the borrower and guarantor for recovery of Banks' dues and there is no order passed by DRT for taking possession of secured assets.
iv) The order from NCDRC received by branch however the exact date can't be confirmed. As far as the inward register is concerned that the same was not maintain by the branch.
v) With respect to injunction order of Hon'ble NCDRC order dated 14.07.2017.
a) The CMM has passed order on 04.08.2016 and the Hon'ble NCDRC was subsequent to the order passed by the CMM. Hence same could not informed to the CMM.
b) Can't be provided as per above reason.
c) There is no question of suppressing the facts.
d) There is no such policy of suppressing facts.
vi) Please note that we are not uploading the information sought in RTI under reference on the website. However, the information which is required u/s-
4(1) of the RTI act is being uploaded
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.11.2020 alleging that the reply given was false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2020 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 3 of 7Hearing on 01.12.2022
5. The Appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prashant Kulkarni, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 05.12.2022:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that during the course of hearing, the respondent submitted that subsequently they had provided an opportunity of inspection in response to point no. (iii) of RTI Application, but the applicant had not visited the office for inspection. In this regard, the Commission is of the view that since no documentary proof showing that the inspection of relevant records had been provided to the applicant, was placed on records, the Commission advised the respondent to upload copy of such communication on the portal of Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission observes that the applicant filed a letter before the Commission stating that she received appointment letter from Delhi State Legal Service Authority appointing Adv. Rashmi Maurya to represent the instant case. But, Adv. Rashmi Maurya neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written submissions seeking exemption from personal appearance. In these circumstances, it is difficult to dispose of the instant matter; therefore, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the present matter in the interest of justice. The registry of this bench is directed to issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties concerned. The notice of hearing may also be served to the Counsel of applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."
Hearing on 21.03.2023 Page 4 of 7
6. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference. 6.1. The Commission passed the following directions on 05.04.2023:
"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that Shri Anup Kumar Sharma had recently joined the bank as CPIO and he was not aware of the complete facts of the case. Therefore, he sought some time to go through compete files of Appellant/Appellant to enable him to present the case properly. In view of the principle of natural justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to defend the case. Accordingly, the complaint is adjourned."
Hearing on 27.07.2023
7. The Commission passed the following directions on 25.10.2023:
"In this case, hearing had taken place on 27.07.2023. But due to administrative, technical reasons, the arguments could not be drawn conclusively to facilitate an equitable decision. Hence, it is decided to hear the case afresh and the case is accordingly adjourned."
Hearing on 14.12.2023:
8. The Appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.
9. The Appellant's Advocate (assigned by Delhi State Legal Services Authority upon Appellant's request) submitted that she had no instructions or communication from the Appellant regarding the cases listed for hearing before the Commission. She requested the Commission to take into consideration the contents and grounds raised in the complaint. Despite being given multiple opportunities, she reiterated that the Appellant had not contacted her and she was appearing before the Commission to represent Ms. Page 5 of 7 Pooja V. Shah in pursuance to the information received from Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
10. The respondent while defending their case submitted that they had provided point- wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.10.2020. Besides, the appellant had raised the issue of delay in responding to the RTI application. They clarified that the delay caused in the matter was on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch.
11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply was given by the CPIO on 21.10.2020. With respect to the delay caused in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO explained that the same was caused on account of COVID-19 restrictions and due to shortage of staff in their Branch. That being so, there appears to be no mala fide on the part of the CPIO. Keeping in view the above, and in absence of the appellant to plead her case or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent during the course of hearing were taken on record. The Commission also takes serious note of the absence of the appellant (Ms. Pooja V. Shah) despite notices having been duly served upon her for all the four hearings scheduled on 01.12.2022, 21.03.2023, 27.07.2023 and 14.12.2023. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 15.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 6 of 7
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank OF India RTI Cell,
Legal Department, 4th Floor,
EAST Wing, Star House, C-5,
G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
2. The FAA
Bank OF India RTI Cell,
Legal Department, 4th Floor,
EAST Wing, Star House, C-5,
G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051
3. Adv. Rashmi Maurya
4. Ms Pooja V Shah
Page 7 of 7