Central Information Commission
Mrsunil Dutt Sharma vs Bank Of Baroda on 4 August, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001562/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 4th August 2014
Date of decision : 4th August 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sunil Dutt Sharma,
S/o Shri Jai Prakesh Sharma, House No.
2A/220, Ghrami Mandi, Gurudwara Road,
Saharanpur, U P
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (Dehradun Region): 410,
Indrabagar Colony, Dehradun248001
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Saharanpur.
On behalf of the Respondents, Ms. Shubhra Saxena, Law Officer was present at
the NIC Studio, Dehradun.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 27.12.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking certified photocopies of a letter written by one Smt. Mumtaz Begum to the Respondents on 26.10.2009 and their reply dated 29.12.2009 to her. The CPIO responded on 17.1.2013 and denied the information. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 23.1.2013. In his order dated 31.1.2013, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 4.7.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents stated that they had given a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Appellant to construct a house. They received a legal notice from Smt. Mumtaz Begum in October 2009, in which she had stated that the Appellant had sold the property in question to her and that the bank should not auction it. They further submitted that they responded to the above legal notice, stating that in case the Appellant had sold the property to Smt. Mumtaz Begum, this was a development after creation of a mortgage by the bank on the said property and that, therefore, the bank has a first charge on the property in question. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information. The Appellant stated that he is the customer of the bank and not Smt. Mumtaz Begum. Since she has interfered with his loan account by sending the above legal notice to the bank, the bank should provide the information sought by him. In response to our query, the Appellant stated that the above matter is also pending before a court. The Respondents stated that they are not a party to the court case, which is between the Appellant and Smt. Mumtaz Begum.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties. Since the matter is pending before a court, we would refrain from directing the Respondents to provide any information. However, we direct the CPIO to make a reference to the third party in this case, Smt. Mumtaz Begum, under Section 11 of the RTI Act and provide certified copies of the letters, sought by the Appellant, in case Smt. Mumtaz Begum does not have any objection to the same.
4. With the above direction, 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