Taranjit Singh vs State Bank Of India on 17 November, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Taranjit Singh vs State Bank Of India on 17 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 17.05.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 20.03.2019 and first appeal dated 18.04.2019 :-

(i) File notings of official and legal advisor from State Bank of India fountain chowk Ludhiana Punjab of property details Wasika no. 2465 dated 22.05.1991 that they did FIR No. 229 dated 12.09.2009

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Ludhiana seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 15.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied Page 1 of 4 with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 09.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 17.05.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 17.05.2019 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 15.04.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"The information sought relates to commercial confidence for the Bank and is also held by the Bank in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the same is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of RTI Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 09.05.2019 held that as the reply had already been sent by the CPIO, the main grievance of the appellant regarding refusal of reply stood redressed.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajender Kumar, CPIO, State Bank of India, Ludhiana attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding the property possessed by him and registered in the year 2006 in the name of his father and he had the title deed in his possession. The appellant further submitted that the respondent had raised a counter-claim to the property and had refused to disclose the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that one Mr. Manohar Singh in 1999 had mortgaged the property mentioned in the RTI application, however, the appellant claimed to be in the possessed of that property. The respondent further stated that the property had been auctioned by them in pursuance to the Page 2 of 4 proceedings and directions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The appellant had challenged the auction before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Further, the appellant had also approached the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed. Further, the appellant had not specified clearly in his RTI application the documents he required.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. The appellant requested the file notings and copy of legal advice given with regard to Wasika no. 2465 dated 22.05.1991 and FIR No. 229 dated 12.09.2009 pertaining to the dispute between both the parties over the possession of that property. The appellant having claimed to be the title holder of the property may not be refused the information on the ground that he was a third party and the exemption claimed by the respondent was not tenable in the eyes of law. It may not be out of place to mention that the appellant has sought the information disclosure of which would not adversely affect the rights of any individuals/parties and would not fall under the exemptions of section 8 of the RTI Act. Public interest demands that the information be disclosed to the applicant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that inspection of the records pertaining to the property as referred to in the RTI application, i.e. Wasika no. 2465 dated 22.05.1991, be facilitated to the applicant on a mutually convenient date within three weeks and the certified copies of the documents identified by the appellant be made available to him. The respondent is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission within 40 days. With these 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: 15.11.2021 Authenticated true copy आर सीताराम मूत ) R. Sitarama Murthy ( .

              उप पंजीयक
Dy. Registrar (         )
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
                                                                                  Page 3 of 4
 Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : STATE BANK OF INDIA
REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE,
REGION-1, FOUNTAIN CHOWK,
CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA - 141 001

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
GENERAL MANAGER (NW - 4),
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SEC. 17B,
CHANDIGARH - 160 017

SH. TARANJIT SINGH




                                  Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission