Central Information Commission
C Arul Amuthan vs Indian Overseas Bank on 9 July, 2019
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/173384
C Arul Amuthan ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Overseas
Bank, Law Department
Regional Office,
Coimbatore. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.06.2017 FA : 31.07.2017 SA : 12.10.2017
CPIO : 11.07.2017 FAO : 24.08.2017 Hearing : 13.06.2019
ORDER
(09.07.2019) The Issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.10.017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.6.2017 and first appeal dated 31.7.2017 seeking information on 10 (ten) points:-
- The status of Public fund handling by IOB, action taken against NPAs for recovery, action taken against their Branches for violation of procedures and for not following Credit sanction advice terms (CIBIL Reports etc), especially action taken against their Branch at Ramalinga Nager, Coimbatore;
- To provide CIBIL Report on principal Borrower of PG Dyes & Chem;Page 1 of 5
- To provide specific reason of IOB Ramalinganagar Branch, who volunteered to take over PG Dyes & Chem Account;
- Before Credit Sanction advice, whether IOB given mandatory advice in case of PG Dyes & Chem to close all current accounts in Catholic Syrian Bank and other banks;
- After Credit Sanction advice, whether IOB gave permission to PG Dyes & Chem to operate current a/cs in other banks or PH Dyes & Chem informed IOB about having accounts in other banks.
- To provide information whether credit sanction advice terms and conditions were followed by IOB and Borrower while sanction of CC Loan to PG Dyes & Chem;
- Whether IOB Branch Officials gave undue advantage to PG Dyes & Chem not to follow the terms and conditions of credit sanction advice;
- To provide information whether stocks insurance value by PG Dyes & Chem. properly covered the entire CC Loan limit from date of sanction of CC Loan till recovery action under SARFAESI Act;
- To provide whether insurance covered the margin (stocks) shown in the stock statement; and
- Whether final recall notice on 26.7.2012 was serviced to PG Dyes & Chem and all partners and guarantors.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.06.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Law Department Regional Office, Coimbatore, seeking the aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 11.07.2017. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 31.07.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 24.08.2017.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.10.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration. The matter was part heard on the dates of last hearing on 04.04.2019 and 07.05.2019 and posted to 13.6.2019.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.10.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the requisite information and the CPIO was Page 2 of 5 incorrect to state that an applicant may not ask questions about the nature and quality of actions of authorities.
4. The CPIO replied that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous in nature and culling out the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority which was exempted under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. Further, he stated that the information request was relating to the customers of the bank and the disclosure of the same was exempted under section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of RTI act. The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO and held that the appellant had not sought 'information' as defined in section 2 (f) of RTI Act and had rather raised mere allegations against the bank.
5. The appellant and respondent, represented by Ms. Sarawsati, Chief Regional Manager, attended the hearing through Video Conferencing.
5.1. The appellant submitted that he was a guarantor in respect of the loan account of M/s PG Dyes & Chem. However, he was not the authorised signatory in the said loan account. He submitted that the loan account became non-performing asset (NPA) within a very short period and he suspected the negligence of partners of the company to be primary reason for the same. He also submitted OTS proposals for the loan account to the respondent bank and sought information relating to the transactions in that account. However, the respondent denied the information under section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act despite being the guarantor of the loan account.
5.2. The respondent inter alia defended that the NPA account with respect to M/s PG Dyes & Chem was sold to Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (ARCIL) in March 2014 and, therefore, all their rights as lender have passed on to ARCIL as per section 5 of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent further submitted that after Page 3 of 5 such assignment to ARCIL, the right to enforcement of assets and related information was with ARCIL. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant was not in their custody. The respondent stated that the appellant had filed around 70 RTI applications with similar subject-matter and information as available with them had been provided to him in each case. The second appeals in this regard had been heard by the Commission earlier (CIC/SH/C/2016/000119, CIC/SH/A/2016/000876, CIC/SH/A/2016/000797, CIC/SH/C/2016/000145, CIC/SH/A/2016/000936, CIC/SH/C/2016/000149, CIC/SH/A/2016/00114, CIC/SH/C/2016/000232, CIC/SH/A/2016/001439, CIC/SH/C/2016/000180) and information relating to the loan account of PG Dyes & Chem had been provided in compliance of the directions given by the Commission. The appellant was also offered inspection of the relevant records under their custody relating to the loan account.
6. The Commission feels that the reply given by the respondent is not specific and is short of reasoning. The appellant is a guarantor of the loan account of M/s PG Dyes & Chem and has filed several complaints between the period 2012 to 2016 seeking information about the status of his complaints. He has sought information relating to the NPA account as a concerned guarantor and is entitled to get the information. The appellant has also raised queries in the form of 'advice' and 'whether' which do not fall under the definition of 'information' as prescribed under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.. The respondent may not respond to such queries which require creation or collation of data.
6.1. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, directs that the respondent to revisit the RTI application and provide revised point-wise reply along with the action taken reports on the appellant's complaints to him in consonance with the provisions of Page 4 of 5 the RTI Act within 30 days from date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is partly allowed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 09.07.2019 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:
THE CPIO, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, LAW DEPARTMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.
MR. C ARUL AMUTHAN, COPY TO:
FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (UNDER RTI ACT), INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE: P.B.NO. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 11/952 , CROSSCUT ROAD GANDHIPURAM COIMBATORE- 641 012 Page 5 of 5