Central Information Commission
Gurdas Garg vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 1 January, 2024
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/UCOBK/A/2022/657457
CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/657396
CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/657239
Gurdas Garg ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
UCO Bank,
Chandigarh ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.05.2022 FA : 14.07.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 06.06.2022 FAO : No Order Hearing : 27.12.2023
Date of Decision: 29.12.2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The issues raised in all three second appeals arising out of the RTI applications dated 05.05.2022 are identical/similar. Therefore, it is found prudent to pass a common order in all the three appeals.
1.1. The Appellant filed RTI applications dated 05.05.2022 seeking information on the following points with respect to three loan accounts of M/s Gurdas Exports, M/s GG Continentals and M/s GG Oils & Fats Pvt. Ltd.:
Page 1 of 5(i) "Photocopies of all Title Deeds of IPs in the name of Sh. Gurdas Garg, S/o Sh.
Nohar Chand Garg said to be mortgaged to bank for granting credit facilities to above said firm.
(ii) Photocopies of all valuation reports got done by bank from approved valuer of the bank and valuation certificate of bank officials of my IPs said to be mortgaged to bank.
(Period for which Information sought: From 01.02.2016 to 05.05.2022)
(iii) Photocopies copies of all legal search reports of my IPs got conducted by advocate on bank's panel.
(Period for which Information sought: From 01.02.2016 to 05.05.2022)
(iv) Photocopies copies of all letters of intent, if any, signed by me for creation/continuation/extension of charge/mortgage in favour of bank to secure the credit facilities granted to above said firm.
(Period for which Information sought: From 01.02.2016 to 05.05.2022)
(v) Photocopies copies of mortgage deed register showing the entry of Equitable Mortgage of Ips (belongs to me) by bank officials. Provide me complete details of date of mortgage of IP's and extension of charge time to time. (Period for which Information sought: From 01.02.2016 to 05.05.2022)
(vi) Provide me the copy of CERSAI making entry of mortgage in respect of my properties said to be mortgaged to bank for securing the credit facilities to above firm time to time.
(Period for which information sought: From 01.02.2016 to 05.05.2022) etc. thorugh 16 points"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. Photocopies of Title Deeds in the name of Sh. Gurdas Garg, S/o Sh. Nohar Chand Garg enclosed as Annexure A. Page 2 of 5 ii. Valuation Reports are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
iii. Legal Search Reports are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
iv. Letters of Intent are internal documents of Bank and cannot be furnished under RTI Act.
v. Information sought is Internal Document of Bank. vi. Information sought is Internal Document of Bank, etc."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 14.07.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading, which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
4. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals dated nil.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh Jadav, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had only provided information with respect to point no. (i) of the RTI application. He further argued that he was borrower as well as mortgagor in the account. Therefore, he was entitled to the information sought in the RTI Application.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant's loan account had been declared NPA and a recovery suit had been filed by the respondent bank before DRT. They gave a para-wise response to all the points, during the course of hearing, briefly produced as under:
(i) The information was provided on 06.06.2022.
(ii) & (iii) : Although most of the documents (sought in point nos ii & iii of the RTI application) had already been produced before DRT, they were prepared to provide the same in response to the RTI application.Page 3 of 5
(iv), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii). (xiv) : Information sought was indefinite and non-
specific, hence, was not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
(v) Information related to IPs used by bank officials for making entries of equitable mortgages in the register contained commercially sensitive information.
(vi) & (xiii) : Information was available in public domain and RBI guidelines with respect to declaration of NPA accounts.
(xv) Information was exempted under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
(xvi) No reply was given.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the CPIO on 06.06.2022 was evasive and incorrect. It may be noted that the respondent had provided information in response to point no. (i) of the RTI application and denied most of remaining information with the plea that the same were internal in nature. The respondent failed to cite relevant exemption clauses as per the provisions of the RTI Act while denying the information. During the course of hearing, the CPIO along with the representative addressed all the points in the RTI application while citing provisions under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. However, the same was not reflected in their written reply dated 06.06.2022. Keeping in view the oral pleadings brought out by the CPIO during the course of hearing, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide point-wise reply/information to the appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8.1. Upon receipt of the revised reply, if the Appellant remains dissatisfied, the Appellant is advised to specify his requirement or restrict the time period for which he seeks "all" records. Thereafter, to facilitate the Appellant, the CPIO is at liberty to offer an opportunity of inspection of the available records subject to the exemptions of Section 8 to the Appellant in order to allay any of his apprehensions and at the same time, to avoid Page 4 of 5 causing disproportionate diversion of resources of the public authority. With these observations and directions, the appeals are disposed off.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 29.12.2023
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
UCO Bank,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Zonal Office Chandigarh, UCO Bank Building,
55,56,57, Bank Square, Sector 17B,
Chandigarh-160017
2. Gurdas Garg
Page 5 of 5