Aruna Kumar Acharya vs State Bank Of India on 2 March, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Aruna Kumar Acharya vs State Bank Of India on 2 March, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.01.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 01.10.2018and first appeal dated 12.11.2018:-

 Aruna Kumar Acharya had availed some loan from the State Bank of India, Pallahara Branch, Pallahara by mortgaging some lands which belongs to the ancestral and common property of Late Nilamani Dwibedy, Sannsahi Pallahara, without the knowledge of the legal heiress of Nilamani Dwibedy and as such it is Page 1 of 4 requested to give all the information relating to this issue as mentioned under neith.

     (i)       Ref. to loan A/c No. & date
     (ii)      Total amount of loan availed by Nagendra Kumari Dwideby @ Acharya.
     (iii)     Details of the land mortgaged.
               Village    Name      of Name of Khata       Plot    Area   Kissam
                          the Thana      the       No.     No.
                                         Tehesil




     (iv)      Land in toto mortgaged.
     (v)       Copy of the agreement executed for the purpose of loan.
     (vi)      Present position of this case.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 01.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Odisha, seeking aforesaid information.

The CPIO replied on 18.10.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.11.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 11.12.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.01.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.01.2019inter alia on the grounds that desired information/document was not provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information immediately free of cost.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.10.2018 replied that information sought pertained to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which was exempted Page 2 of 4 under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 11.12.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Manoranjan Samal, CPIO and Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Kendujhar, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought for information regarding details of loan sanctioned in favour of Smt. Dwibedy such an amount of loan, terms and conditions and details of property mortgaged for the purpose. He further submitted that the respondent bank had sanctioned the loan without verification of landed properties and its confirmation of possession and disbursed the loan to Nagendra Kumari Dwibedy and kept the landed property of joint family as security which appears to be irregular because the appellant had equal share of entitlement and apportionment of land so mortgaged. The appellant argued that being a legal heir, he was having interest in the property and therefore, he was entitled for the information. However, the respondent denied the information considering him as third party and claimed exemptions under section 8 (1)

(e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Nagendra Kumari Dwibedy had taken personal loan and no property was mortgaged by her as claimed by the appellant in his RTI application. They further informed that said personal loan account was turned into NPA and recovery proceeding was under process.

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 loan sanctioned to Ms. Nagedra Kumari Dwibedy by the respondent bank against the ancestral property mortgaged which belonged to Late Nilamani Dwibedy. The appellant during the course of hearing informed that being legal heir of Late Nilamani Dwibedy and affected party, he was entitled for the information sought by him. However, the respondent during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that no loan was sanctioned by the bank to Ms. Nagedra Kumari Dwibedy by mortgaging any property. They stated that only one personal loan was sanctioned to Ms. Nagedra Kumari Dwibedy Page 3 of 4 and subsequently account turned NPA and therefore recovery proceeding was under

process. The commission feels that reply given by the respondent was evasive and incomplete. Hence, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within two 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: 02.03.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, REGION - 2, 1ST FLOOR, KEONJHAR BRANCH BUILDING, KEONJHAR - 758 001 The F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-1), State Bank of India, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, III/I, Pt. J. NEHRUMARG, BHUBANESWAR - 751 001 ARUNA KUMAR ACHARYA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission