Sukant Bhattacharya vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 18 February, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sukant Bhattacharya vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 18 February, 2022

1. The issues under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated 23.08.2019 due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 05.07.2019 are as under:-

(i) Take necessary action against the CPIO for not providing the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

(ii) Direct the respondent to provide the information sought by the complainant.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 05.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, seeking following information:

Page 1 of 4

 Documents based on which IDBI has considered the project was legal and approved the loan account no. ************6686.

The CPIO vide letter dated 01.08.2019 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved with the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated 05.08.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA)vide order dated 23.08.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a complaint dated 23.08.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated 23.08.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.08.2019denied to provide the information under Section 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.The FAA vide order dated 23.08.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The complainant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Ritika Iyer, CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd., Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that he had taken home loan from IDBI for IDBI approved housing project in Greater Noida. He stated that the bank had done due diligence for the project and verified all the clearances and promoted the project. The bank had charged its fees for the due diligence. The complainant further submitted that based on the approval of IDBI, he had applied for one 2 BHK flat in Czar Suites Plot No. GH - 02 Sector, Omicron - 1, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The developer Supertech had fraudulently developed the project without clearance from GNDA and allotted flat no. 105 to the appellant. The bank had released the payments time to time after verifying/or without verifying all the clearances and progress on the existing land of a CZAR society. Since, the complainant was based in Dubai he was not following up all the issues related to clearance or fraud. In 2016 Czar residents filed court case against the builder Supertech and court declared the construction illegal. Based on that findings, the Court had sealed all the flats. Till then IDBI had paid full amount for the flat of Rs. 19 lakhs and it was declared illegal by the Allahabad High Court. The complainant was paying his pre- EMI and EMI for over 5 years since 2013. Hence, he sought documents based on which IDBI had considered the project was legal and approved the loan account no. ************6686. However, the respondent had arbitrarily denied the information.

Page 2 of 4

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information/documents sought was based on which the bank had considered the project were internal documents of the bank. They further submitted that documents like legal & technical reports and other credit processing appraisal reports etc. which were obtained by the Bank, at its own cost, which were strictly for internal use of the Bank, and the same were in the nature of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which might have harmed the competitive position of the Bank, and hence it was claimed exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the 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 and misleading. It is noted that the developer Supertech had fraudulently developed the project without clearance from GNDA and allotted flat no. 105 to the appellant. The respondent bank had released the payments time to time after verifying/or without verifying all the clearances and progress on the existing land of a CZAR society. The complainant was an affected party and the public interests demand that information sought should have been provided to the appellant. The Commission feels that the respondent had perfunctorily denied the information as disclosure of information sought would have not harmed any competitive position of the bank. In view of the above, Ritika Iyer, the present CPIO as well as Shri Rahul Asuri, the then CPIO are show caused as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the complainant.The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanation as well as his attendance in the next hearing. All written submissions must reach this Commission within 21 days.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 18.02.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO:

IDBI BANK LIMITED, IDBI TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, WTC COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -400005.

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IDBI BANK LIMITED, IDBI TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, WTC COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA -400005.

SH. SUKANT BHATTACHARYA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission