Vinay Sakharam Dadmal vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinay Sakharam Dadmal vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.08.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 05.07.2018 and first appeal dated 11.07.2018:-

(i) In 2011 before issuing LoU to Nirav Modi which documents about Nirav Modi checked by Punjab National Bank.

(ii) Is this the first time Punjab National Bank had moved to Debit Recovery Tribunal to register Rs. 7000 crores debt against Nirav Modi?

(iii) How a financial status of any person checked in PNB and how that status updated?

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 05.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 10.07.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 11.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 06.08.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.08.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 12.08.2018inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 10.07.2018 replied that information sought was in the form of questionnaire replying to which was exempted under the provisions of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 12.08.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Hearing on 27.08.2020:

4.1. The appellant as well as respondent remained absent.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 02.09.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, notes that the parties were not present before the Commission despite hearing notice sent to them and in the absence of which relevant facts of the case could not be ascertained. Further, absence of the respondent shows their non seriousness towards the RTI Act as well as the Commission which would undermine to the very objectives of the RTI Act. Hence the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, the present CPIO and Shri Joy Roy, the then CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. All the written explanations must reach to the Commission within 15 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply to the RTI application within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Page 2 of 4

Hearing on 18.02.2021:

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Punjab National Bank, Bandra attended the hearing through audio conference.

5.1 The respondent tendered unconditional apologized for not being able to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 27.08.2020. The respondent further submitted that their absence was unintentional and that they did not receive the hearing notice. However, on receipt of the show cause notice they re-visited the RTI application. The information sought by the appellant was in the nature of queries which were not covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of RTI Act. Moreover, there was no intention to disregard the directions of the Commission and they attended all hearings before the Commission.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, notes that the information sought by the appellant was in the nature of queries and was not specific. The respondent is also not under an obligation to create such information not available in material form. The respondent have submitted the explanations regarding absence on the last date of hearing and the same are reasonable and satisfactory. In absence of any mala fide, there appears to be no appropriate reason for taking penal action against the CPIOs. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, the present CPIO and Shri Joy Roy, the then CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सू सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.02.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, F-7, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005 THE F.A.A, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CircleOffice, F-7, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 Sh. SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, F-7, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005

2. Sh. SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, F-7, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. JOY ROY) Sh. VINAY SAKHARAM DADMAL Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission