Central Information Commission
Shreeth Chandrakant Walkare vs Reserve Bank Of India on 31 May, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/607999
Shreeth Chandrakant Walkare ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: RBI, Mumbai
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.11.2022 FA : 13.12.2022 SA : 11.02.2023
CPIO : 09.12.2022 FAO : 12.01.2023 Hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of Decision: 31.05.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.11.2022 seeking the following information:
Duly certified copies of the Sale Certificate & associated documents of sale of the property: 1st Floor, Corporation House No.365, Mouza Indora, CTS No. 1367, within NIT & NMC Plot No. 1015, Buddha Nagar, Nagpur- 440017. sold under SARFAESI E-Auction Sale dt. 23.06.2020 on https://sarfaesi.auctiontiger.net by DCB Bank Limited. Loan Account Number:xxxxxxxxx6305 Page 1 of 3 Borrower & Co Borrower: Sanjay Mahade Orao Walkare Mahadeorao Walkare.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought is not available with us."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.02.2023.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Abhijeet Kaushal, Law Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertained to loan availed by him from DCB Bank Limited. Therefore, the information neither pertained to them nor was available under their custody.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 31.05.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 2 of 3 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) Reserve Bank of India, Department of Supervision, Central Office, World Trade Centre1, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai- 400005 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)