Central Information Commission
Mr. Arun Nevatia vs Syndicate Bank on 15 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No.2438/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBA/08/314
July 15, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18/19
Appellant: Mr. Arun Nevatia
Public Authority: Syndicate Bank
Mr. D. Chakraborty, AGM & PIO
Mr. B.S. Surendra, GM & Appellate Authority
FACTS:
By an application dated 3.10.2007, as a director of M/S Jeevan Lal (1929) Limited, the appellant sought for inspection of file No.46P with all records, correspondence etc. in respect of tenancy of Brabourne Road Branch since inception. By a communication dated 26.10.2007, the CPIO declined to furnish the information in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act stating that the matter was pending before Kolkata High Court in which the appellant was a plaintiff. By an appeal dated 29.11.2007, the appellant contended that the CPIO had rejected the application applying the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Act without indicating any sub -section of Section 8(1) and as such the decision of the CPIO should be set aside. By a decision dated 4.12.2007 while pointing out that the CPIO had rejected the application in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act and not under Section 8(1) as contended by the appellant, the AA observed that there were disputes between the appellant and the bank pending before the High Court and both the bank and the appellant were contesting against each other and as such under RTI Act, the appellant cannot compel the bank to reveal the information. Accordingly, applying the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, the AA rejected the appeal. Comments and rejoinder are on record.
DECISION:
Normally, on the ground that a matter is before a court of law, disclosure of information cannot be denied in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, However, this Commission has been taking a view that if the information sought is directly connected with a matter in a Court and the information seeker and the public authority are the parties therein, then the information seeker should approach the Court for a direction to the public authority to disclose the documents. In the present case, in the comments, the Bank has taken the stand that it has to contest 1 the case with the documents available with it. This being the case, the appellant should approach the court for a direction for inspection and cannot seek the same through an RTI application. Therefore, I uphold the decisions of the CPIO and AA and dismiss the appeal.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Mr. D. Chakraborty, AGM & PIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kolkata, 27, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017
2. Mr. B.S. Surendra, GM & Appellate Authority, Syndicate Bank, Planning & Development Department, Corporate Office, 1st Floor, Syndicate Bank Building, Gandhinagar, 2nd Cross, Bangalore-560009
3. Mr. Arun Nevatia, Director, Jeevanlal Limited, 9/1, Justice Chandra Madhav Road, Kolkata-700020 2