Central Information Commission
Mrmahesh Sahnan vs Indian Bank on 10 September, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001613/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 10th September 2014
Date of decision : 10th September 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mahesh Sahnan,
Bxix, 1356/4b, Lane No. 3, Kitchlu Naggar
Extn. Ludhiana141001
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Bank,
Corporate Office, Customer Service Cell, (RTI Desk), 254260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Ludhiana. On behalf of the Respondents, Ms. Subhashani Parthasarthi, CPIO was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.9.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points regarding correspondence of the bank with five different individuals in connection with the account of M/s Swastika Knitting and Spinning Mills. The CPIO responded on 12.11.2012 and denied the information under Section 8 (1) (d) &
(e) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 27.11.2012. In his order dated 29.12.2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO's reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 1.4.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 5.4.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that he was a partner in the firm M/s Swastika Knitting and Spinning Mills since 1985 and resigned from partnership of the said firm in 1992. Later on, it was converted into proprietorship. The proprietor expired in December 2004. The Respondents have filed a suit in DRT for recovery of dues and the Appellant has been impleaded as one of the defendants. He wanted the copies of correspondence made by the Respondents with other defendants impleaded in the suit. He further submitted that he has the document in his possession, as per which, he ceased to be the partner of the firm. The Respondents submitted that they denied the information under Section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act as the information sought related to third parties and a suit is pending in DRT, Chandigarh.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar