Central Information Commission
Mr. Krishan Swaroop Srivastava vs Union Bank Of India on 6 October, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2865 & 2866/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBA/2008/303, 060
October 6, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
[Hearing on 22.9.2008 at 11.45 a.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Krishan Swaroop Srivastava
Public authority: Union Bank of India
Central Public Information Officer
Appellate Authority
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. Vipin Chandra, Sr. Manager (law)
Mr. Atul Khatri, Manager (Law)
Mr. Krishan Swaroop Shrivastava-Appellant
FACTS:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated 29.9.2007 addressed to CPIO, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh regarding PMRY loans scandalously sanctioned to one Mr. Amit Srivastava and his wife and regarding the details of staff of the Bank who are involved in the scam. The CPIO by his letter dated 5.11.2007 has informed the appellant that no officials were involved in the scam. Not satisfied with this reply the appellant preferred appeal before the First AA on 1.11.2007. Alleging no reply from first AA the appellant preferred this appeal before the Commission on 4.12.2007. Comments were called for from the public authority vide letter dated 2.5.2008 followed by a reminder dated 15.7.2008. The Bank has submitted its comments dated 12.3.2008 and 22.7.2008.
DECISION:
2. These cases came up for hearing on 22.9.2008, which was attended by the appellant in person. The Bank was represented by its Sr. Manager (Law) and Manager (Law). I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. The cases were deliberated in details during the hearing. Originally the appellant has made a complaint to the Bank. Though he is working in the Recovery Section of Collector's office he has come to know that some fictitious parties have taken loan under PMRY from three different branches of Union Bank of India and one branch of Central Bank of India and he wanted to know what action the Bank has taken in respect of these loans. On 1 receipt of the complaint the Bank has noticed that these parties to whom loans were sanctioned were not genuine parties as PMRY loan can be given only once, whereas they have taken loan on four different occasions. However, the Bank sanctioned such loans only on the basis of the recommendations of the District Industries Centre. On receipt of the application the Bank has made a complaint in the respective Police Station with a copy to the District Industries Centre.
3. During the hearing the appellant has stated the Bank has not filed any FIR nor they have taken any follow-up action in respect of these loans. However, the Bank has shown the complaint filed with the Police and the letter written to District Industries Centre, Kanpur Nagar evidencing their action. Moreover they have clarified that the Police is expected to carry out investigation and make FIR.
The Bank is facing the problem of recovering the loan from the respective borrower and therefore the Bank is expected to take follow-up action in respect of the complaint which they have lodged before the Police. Therefore I direct the Bank to find out the present status of the case. In case if no action has been taken the Bank has to pursue the case properly. As far as RTI Act is concerned, we are expected to provide information as it is available in the file. However, since the appellant though he is working in the Recovery Section of Collector's office and though he is not connected anyway with the sanctioning of this loan, he has alerted the Bank on the basis of the news paper report and for which the Bank has taken certain preliminary steps, but they could not follow-up the matter systematically. RTI does not mean that the Bank has to give only information that is available and they can also take a stand the applicant is in any way connected with this loan and therefore he is not entitled for this information. In this particular case the Bank is expected to recover the loan. Therefore I direct the Bank to inform the appellant regarding the present status of the case in respect of the loan sanctioned to those fictitious parties on the basis of the recommendation of the District Industries Centre. While giving this information the Bank should also provide the particulars of the first AA and therefore if the appellant is not satisfied he can file appeal before the first AA and it will also be brought to the notice of higher officials of the Bank so that the some remedial steps can be taken in respect of sanctioning of such loans.
4. Apart from this since it has been brought to the notice of the Bank, the Bank has to take up this issue at the HQ level so that they can alert all the branches coming under the Union Bank of India. They can also bring this to the notice of IBA so that they in turn issue circulars to all other Banks in respect of sanctioning of PMRY loans on the recommendations of the District Industries Centre, so that the loans are sanctioned only to genuine parties.
5. Since the appellant was not convinced, it has been decided during the hearing the appellant can be offered an opportunity of inspecting the concerned loan files discussed in this case. During the hearing, it was agreed among the parties that the appellant can go to the CPIO for inspection during the first week 2 of October. Hence, it has been directed the CPIO will arrange these files for inspection of the appellant on a mutually convenient date in the first week of October and after inspection if the appellant insists for any copies he can be given. After carrying out inspection if the appellant is not satisfied he can approach the first AA once again for which purpose the CPIO will give the particulars of the first AA to the appellant during the inspection. If the appellant files one such appeal the first AA is directed to dispose of this appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of such an appeal. Thereafter if the appellant is not satisfied he is at liberty to approach the Commission once again.
On these lines these appeals are disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, 117/H-1/240, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur-208005
2. Appellate Authority, Union Bank of India, Regional Office, 117/H-1/240, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur-208005
3. Mr. Krishan Swaroop Shrivastava, T-2/3, Officers Colony, Rawatpur, Kanpur.3