Byragoni Sreenivas Goud vs Punjab National Bank on 24 February, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Byragoni Sreenivas Goud vs Punjab National Bank on 24 February, 2022

1. As the information sought by the appellant/complainant in both the files (CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/157655 and CIC/PNBNK/C/2018/149292) was identical, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the cases.

1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 10.09.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 19.04.2018 and first appeal dated 30.07.2018:-

(i) "Provide complete information on the grounds which made PNB to disburse a secured loan of Rs. 98 crore and Rs. 150 crore to KSI & Industries Ltd. banks Page 1 of 6 half yearly inspection reports with assets mortgage details, corporate guarantee given by M/s. Tayal Energy Ltd. a default company according to reports as submitted online Form 8 in MCA.

(ii) Complete information on if any impounding of Passport procedures taken by the concerned department on Shri Pravin Kumar Ramprathap Tayal and his accompanies in wake of Vijay Mallya and latest Nirav Modi running away from India issue.

(iii) Complete information on any attachments of properties of willful defaulter Shri Pravin Kumar Ramprathap Tayal and his accompanies under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

(iv) Complete information list of the companies on the secured loans provided by PNB or as part of consortium of Banks to Tayal Group of Companies other than KSL & IND Ltd.

     (v)       Any other related information.
     (vi)      File noting on the movement of this RTI application".

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 19.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2018 forwarded to the CPIO, Zonal Office, Mumbai. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.07.2018. Subsequently, the CPIO, Zonal Office, Mumbai, replied point-wise to the RTI application on 27.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 10.09.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 10.09.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 6

4. The CPIO, Delhi, replied on 17.05.2018 forwarded to the CPIO, Zonal Office, Mumbai. Subsequently, the CPIO, Zonal Office, Mumbai, replied point-wise to the RTI application on 27.08.2018. The FAA did not pass any order. Hearing on 05.08.2020 4.1. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and the respondent remained absent.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 24.09.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that CPIO had replied to the RTI application after delay of around 97 days and no explanation was given in this regard. Further, the respondent was not present before the Commission despite hearing notice having been sent to him. It shows their non -seriousness towards the RTI Act as well as the Commission which would undermine the very objective of the RTI Act. It is noted that the information sought was denied by the respondent without mentioning any provision of law. It may not be out of place to mention that the information can be denied only if it is exempted as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. However, the respondent had denied the information without giving satisfactory reasons. Hence, Registry of this Bench is directed to issue a Show Cause notice to the then CPIO and the present CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them for not providing proper reply/information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show-cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised reply/information and in case the Page 3 of 6 information was denied, proper reasons for denial is to be given to the appellant, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 04.02.2022

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sushil, Chief Manager (Law) and PIO, Punjab National Bank, Bandra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent inter alia submitted that he had given written explanations on 18.01.2021. They submitted that the delay in submitting the reply was not wilfull but due to COVID pandemic and also due to amalgamation of e-OBC and e-UNI with Punjab National Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2020 pursuant to the Gazette notification dated 04.03.2020 of the Ministry of Finance which had created temporary disruption in the day to day working of the bank. Due to aforesaid reasons, the notice for hearing of second appeal was also not received by the then PIO and hence he could not attend the hearing on 05.08.2020. The present CPIO stated that he was appointed as PIO vide office order dated 11.08.2020. Thereafter, the order dated 24.09.2020 had also been received in the Zonal Office, Mumbai of the Punjab National Bank only on 08.01.2020. The CPIO was on leave from 28.12.2020 to16.01.2021 due to the ongoing treatment of mother at Trivandrum. The PIO had received copy of the order dated 24.09.2020 only on 18.01.2020, upon joining the office. The CPIO submitted the reply immediately and hence the delay caused in submitting the reply may be pardoned. He also stated that the RTI application was filed before Delhi Office and then transferred to Mumbai. The then CPIO had expired at the relevant time on 01.05.2020 and hence calling/submitting his explanation was not possible. Further, the CPIO tendered unconditional apologies to the Commission and requested to drop the penalty proceedings against them. They replied vide letter dated 18.01.2021 that the information pertained to Tayal Group of Companies availing various credit facilities from their Branch of LCB, Mumbai wherein fraud had been perpetrated and matter was under investigation with CBI. Therefore, the information was exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

Page 4 of 6

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the respondent complied with the Commission's order dated 24.09.2020 and gave reply on 18.01.2021. The respondent explained that the delay in responding to the RTI application was purely administrative and also the RTI application was filed before Delhi Branch which was not concerned with the subject-matter. Therefore, the written explanations submitted by the CPIOs are reasonable and satisfactory. In absence of mala fide there appears to be no ground to take penal action against the CPIO. The show cause notices against Shri Rajesh Krishnan and the then CPIO, are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal and the adjoining complaint are closed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date:23.02.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर.

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

CPIO :

1. Central Public Information Office, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CUFFE PARADEMAKER TOWERS, F WING, 7 FLOOR WORLD TRADE CENTER, MUMBAI- 400005.

2. Central Public Information Office, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CUFFE PARADEMAKER TOWERS, F WING, 7 FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTER, MUMBAI- 400005. (For forwarding to the then CPIO) Page 5 of 6 First Appellate Authority, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CUFFE PARADEMAKER TOWERS, F WING, 7 FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTER, MUMBAI-400005 BYRAGONI SREENIVAS GOUD Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission