Bharat Ashok Mawal vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Bharat Ashok Mawal vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.07.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated12.04.2021and first appeal dated 03.05.2021:-

(i) Did the bank issue Sanction letter for Rs.1,00,00,000/- with outward reference no.

AN38/BM/2012-13 on 28-03-20133 in respect of the account number ********26?

(ii) How much total security amount-wise was under primary security in sanction letter dt.28-03-2013?

(iii) How much total security amount-wise was under collateral security in sanction letter dt.28-03-2013?

Page 1 of 5

(iv) Did you issue Sanction for enhancement of Rs.40,00,000/- with outward reference no. AN38/BM/2012-13 for letter dated 23-04-2013?

(v) How much total security amount-wise was under primary security in sanction letter dated 23-04-2013?

(vi) How much total security amount-wise was under collateral security in sanction letter dt.23-04-2013?

(vii) Did you issue Sanction letter dt.18-09-2013 for enhancement of Rs.1,00,00,000/-

with outward reference no. AN38/Trades &Ser/2013-14/?

(viii) How much total security amount-wise was under primary security in sanction letter dt.18-09-2013?

(ix) How much total security amount-wise was under collateral security in sanction letter dt.18-09-2013?

(x) Did you issue Sanction letter dt.28-03-2013, Sanction Letter dt.23-04-2013 & Sanction letter dt.18-09-2013 under Trade and Services scheme with Margin 40% of the realizable value of the property?

(xi) Did you issue Sanction letter to Mawal Infrastructures Agro Organics R&D Centre and solutions dt.23-05-2014 under MSME Cash Credit for enhancement of Rs.2,50,00,000/- with outward reference no. AN38/CM/2014-15/?

(xii) Did the Sanction letter dt.23-05-2014 was with margin 25%?

(xiii) Was the Sanction letter dated 23-05-2014 was with security for Hypothecation of stock in trade, receivables up to 90 days, advances given to suppliers and guarantee bond of all partners?

(xiv) Did the Sanction letter dated 23-05-2014 was for Hypothecation of collateral securities of immovable properties with Registered Mortgage in bank's favour?

(xv) How much total security amount-wise was under security in sanction letter dt.23- 05- 2014?

(xvi) How much total security amount-wise was under collateral security in sanction letter dt.23-05-2014?

Page 2 of 5

(xvii) How much total security amount-wise was under primary security in sanction letter dt.23-05-2014?

(xviii) Was Additional Charge on security was extended for sanction of 23-04-2013 in respect of original sanction dated 28-03-2013?

(xix) Was Additional Charge on security was extended for sanction of 18-09-2013 in respect of previous sanction dated 23-04-2013?

(xx) All the primary securities under sanction dated 18-09-2013 were not continued as securities in the sanction dated 23-05-2014? Etc. on total 63 points.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.04.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Ahmednagar. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.04.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 03.05.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA)did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 16.07.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 16.07.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.04.2021and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) Informed by the concerned Branch that an FIR has been lodged against the applicant along with others by Bank of Maharashtra Savedi Branch for cheating the bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them.

The investigation is under process.

(ii) Applicant has sought copies of near about 63 documents in his application. Providing documents/information as sought by the applicant would impede the Page 3 of 5 process of investigation in the matter. Hence, same cannot be provided being exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant represented by Shri Ashok Pawar and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vishal Wagh, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought was not provide by the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that the appellant sought aforesaid details to submit the same to the police as well as to the court.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the bank had lodged an FIR against the appellant along with others for cheating the bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them. They further submitted that since the investigation in the said matter was pending, they denied the information to the appellant under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the appellant sought information related to his loan account. The respondent had denied the information stating that the bank had lodged an FIR against the appellant along with others for cheating the bank and forgery of documents relating to the credit facilities availed by them. Accordingly, they submitted that the investigation in the said matter was pending at the time of giving response and they had denied the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, during the course of hearing the respondent failed to provide the information regarding the stage of investigation. They were not sure as to whether the investigation in the said matter was over or still going on. It may not be out of place to mention that if the investigation was complete or charge sheet had been filed, then, the exemption claimed under section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act would not be applicable. The respondent who appeared before the Commission was not aware of the facts of the case properly and thus failed to assist the Commission. The Commission takes a serious note and cautions the CPIO to be more careful in future while presenting the case before the Commission.

Page 4 of 5

Further, the respondent is directed to verify the records as to whether the investigation in the aforesaid matter was complete or charge sheet had been filed and thereafter provide the revised point-wise information/reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 19.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of Maharashtra Gurukul, 2nd Floor, LalTaki Road, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra - 414 001 First Appellate Authority Bank of Maharashtra Gurukul, 2nd Floor, LalTaki Road, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra - 414 001 Shri Bharat Ashok Mawal Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission