Harinder Dhingra vs Stresssed Assets Stabilization Fund ... on 4 December, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harinder Dhingra vs Stresssed Assets Stabilization Fund ... on 4 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.12.2017and first appeal dated 23.02.2018:-

(i) the details of the total number of accounts which have been settled since formation of the fund to recover bad loans of IDBI.

(ii) the outstanding loan amount as on the date of settlement of the account settled by the respondent.

Page 1 of 6

(iii) Further to para 2 of the application, the amount on which each of the above loans was settled.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.01.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.03.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. He also stated that the information furnished by the FAA was totally different from the information sought by him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.01.2018 denied the information under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 22.03.2018 stated that information was available with the appellant and the same had been provided by the appellant in his first appeal having registration no. SASFD/A/2018/600001.

Hearing on 19.05.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Ms.Meena Chandrasekhar Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund(SASF), Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.

Interim order dated 23.06.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observation/directions on 23.06.2020:

"The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that the proper reply/information has not been furnished by the respondent even after lapse of more than two and half Page 2 of 6 years from the date of filing of this RTI application. Further, the respondent have failed to justify the denial of information sought by the appellant. In view of this, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to Mr. Prashant Gore, the then CPIO and Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as the show-cause notice to the then CPIO Mr. Prashant Gore and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach to the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 27.10.2020

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, CPIO and Shri Prashant Gore, the then CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. Shri Prashant Gore, the then CPIO inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank (including details of amounts on which such borrower's accounts were settled) which was in the nature of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a IDBI Bank/ third party. Apart from the above, the information relating to the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank was also held by CPIO in its fiduciary relationship and no larger public interest was involved thereby warranting the disclosure of the said information under the RTI Act. in view of this, he had denied the information by claiming exemption from disclosure under Section 8(l)(e) of RTI Act. He further submitted that in compliance of the direction given by Hon'ble CIC, vide its order dated 23.06.2020, the present CPIO, SASF had furnished proper reply to the appellant vide Page 3 of 6 letter dated 10.08.2020. Shri Prashant Gore, further contended that as the then CPIO he had acted honestly, diligently, reasonably and in good faith in discharging the duties of CPIO of SASF and there was no mala fide involved whatsoever while disposing of the RTI application. Accordingly, he prayed that action initiated under section 20 of the RTI Act may be dropped.

5.2. Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO inter alia submitted that she was designated as CPIO of SASF w.e.f. 19.04.2018. By then the RTI application and first appeal had been disposed of by the previous CPIO and FAA respectively. Thereafter, the appellant had not approached SASF for providing the said information. She further submitted that she had not received any notice regarding hearing on 19.05.2020. Therefore, she could not make any written submissions before the hearing of said appeal. However, immediately after the said hearing, the appellant had made written submissions in the appeal vide letter dated 20.05.2020. Further, as per the directions of the Commission, a detailed self explanatory point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 10.08.2020. Since, there was no delay and mala fide in responding to the RTI application by the present CPIO, hence, she requested the Commission to drop the penalty proceeding issued against her.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant had requested for information relating to the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank including details of amounts on which such borrower's accounts were settled etc. The respondent had simply denied the information without giving any justification. Hence, show-cause notice were issued to them. It may not be out of place to mention that under the RTI Act, the CPIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act. Merely quoting the bare clause of the RTI Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. .However, in compliance of the Commission's order dated 23.06.2020, the respondent had re-visited the RTI Page 4 of 6 application and had duly replied with comprehensive reasons vide their letter dated 10.08.2020. Moreover, the appellant in his second appeal, had failed to demonstrate any public interest warranting the disclosure of information. Further, the explanation submitted by the respondent in response to the show-cause notice appears to be reasonable and it was established that there was no mala fide on part of the respondents while responding to the RTI application. In view of the absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take any action against them as per Section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the show-cause notices issued against to Mr. Prashant Gore, the then CPIO and Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, are hereby dropped. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Ms. MEENA CHANDRASEKHAR (C.P.I.O) STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND, 3RD FLOOR, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400005 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. PRASHANT GORE)

2. Ms. MEENA CHANDRASEKHAR (C.P.I.O) STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND, 3RD FLOOR, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005 HARINDER DHINGRA Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission