Harshit Goel vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 14 June, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harshit Goel vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 14 June, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.02.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 25.09.2019 and first appeal dated 14.10.2019:-

(i) Bank officers who were authorized and had drafted OA No. 677/2000 which was filed by PSB in DRT, New Delhi.

(ii) Advocates and legal professional who were authorized and had drafted OA no.

677/2000.

(iii) Bank officials who were responsible for sanctioning the release of property of M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited stated in Point A.

(iv) Legal professionals who advised the bank to release the said property.

Page 1 of 5

(v) Valuation consultants engaged by bank who prepared valuation reports of said property on the basis of which fair market value of Rs. 80 lakhs was determined for such release.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.09.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIOvide letter dated 30.09.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 19.11.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same,the appellant filed second appeal dated 25.02.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 25.02.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.09.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "The said information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information available is in the fiduciary relationship. UOI vs. CIC & Shri P.D. Khandelwal (W.P. (C) No. 8396 of 2009.

(ii) The said information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI. Act, 2005 as the information available is in the fiduciary relationship (CIC/2006/00101) (CIC/AT/A/2007/00073).

(iii) The said information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information available is in the fiduciary relationship. UOI vs CIC & Shri P.D. Khandelwal (W.P. (C) No. 8396 of 2009.

Page 2 of 5

(iv) The said information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI. Act, 2005 as the information available is in the fiduciary relationship (CIC/2006/00101) (CIC/AT/A/2007/00073).

(v) The said information is exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information available is in the fiduciary relationship."

The FAA vide order dated 19.11.2019 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Nitai Chandra Das, Assistant General Manager and CPIO and Shri Akshay Kumar Dewal, Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding a fraud committed by the borrower i.e. M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited in connivance with the bank officials. He further submitted that the matter was sub-judice and information sought by him in the larger public interest. He informed that he was impleaded as the guarantor in the recovery suit filed in the case and hence, he sought aforesaid information related to account of M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited. However, the respondent had arbitrarily denied the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted thatinformation sought pertained to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, the exemption was claimed under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was evasive. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he was the guarantor the account of M/s Delhi Automobiles Limited and the bank had committed fraud in sanctioning of the loan. The appellant was not a stranger to the account of the said company and adversely affected by the actions of the bank as he was impleaded in the recovery suit filed by the bank. The cases referred by the CPIO in his reply dated 30.09.2019 was distinguishable as the facts of those cases were different.

Page 3 of 5

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.S. Mathur vs. PIO, W. P. (C) 295/2011 dated 3rd June, 2011 has observed that:

"19. The scheme of the RTI Act, its objects and reasons indicate that disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in Section 8 RTI Act."

The CPIO while claiming exemption under section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, failed to give reasons justifying the denial of the information as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. He simply denied the information without explaining as the how the information sought by the appellant was falling in the exempted category. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information redacting the names of the bank officials/legal professionals, if deemed necessary, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO may explain the reasons if names etc. are withheld or designations of the authorities are revealed instead. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 14.06.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर.

सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar ( उप पंजीयक ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO Punjab & Sind Bank, 4th Floor, Bank House, 21,Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Page 4 of 5 First Appellate Authority Punjab & Sind Bank, 4th Floor, Bank House, 21,Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008 Shri Harshit Goel, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission