Anup Kumar Agarwal vs Central Bank on 23 February, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anup Kumar Agarwal vs Central Bank on 23 February, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 20.08.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated28.06.2019and first appeal dated 24.07.2019:-

(i) "List of willful defaulters as released by Central Bank of India to Reserve Bank of India, Finance Department, Government of India and to concerned medias in India details of loan defaulters as released including the names of Directors/Guarantors.

(ii) The details of loan as releases on account of M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited against whom O.A. No. 70 of 1997 was initiated.

(iii) Whether M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited was declared as willful defaulter as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, Finance Department, Government of India.

Page 1 of 5

(iv) Whether any show cause notice/letter issued by Central Bank of India to M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited before declaring M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited as willful defaulters.

(v) Whether any reply received against point no. 4 from the company i.e. M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited or its Directors.

(vi) Certified copies of all the internal notes as exchanged within the office of Central Bank of India before declaring M/s Tea Pack Specialities Limited as willful defaulters from last ten years till the date of issue of information under this RTI application.

(vii) Certified copy of all the letter as exchanged with Reserve Bank of India, Finance Department, Government of India and Central Bank of India, Head Office, Bombay by Central Bank of India, Kolkata before declaring M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited as willful defaulter.

(viii) The detail of all the committee's formed as per Reserve Bank of India guideline and the minutes of the meeting of the committees as formed and outcome of the meeting.

(ix) The award, if any of the committee as formed for the purpose of declaring M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited as willful defaulters.

(x) The final award/outcome of committee headed by the committee before declaring M/s Tea Pack Speciality Limited as willful defaulters.

(xi) Certified copy of claim/counter-claim amount of M/s Tea Pack Speciality against Central Bank of India.

(xii) Whether the claim made by M/s Tea Pack Speciality was prior to filing of OA - 70 of 1997 by Central Bank of India.

(xiii) Certified copy of RTI application vide which point nos (i) to (xii) above has been sought.

(xiv) Inspection of all files in relation to point no. (i) to (xiii) above."

Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.06.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated19.07.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.07.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 16.08.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 20.08.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 20.08.2019inter 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 19.07.2019 stated that the documents called for were highly prerogative in nature and the account was sub-judice in Court of Law. The documents could not be parted with as per provisions contained in Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it involved commercial confidence, trade secrets, the disclosure of which might have harmed the competitive position of a third party, i.e. M/s Tea Pack Specialty Limited. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2019 replied on point no. (i) and (viii) that the information sought for was exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. On point no. (xiii), the CPIO stated that there was no need to provide a certified copy of RTI application dated 28.06.2019 as requested since the appellant must have had a true copy of the same with him. On point no. (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix)m (x), (xi),

(xii) and (xiv) referred the order of Hon'ble CIC dated 23.11.2016 held in the matter of Shri Anil Basu vs Central Bank of India vide File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001705 and CIC/SH/A/2015/002289.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pramod Mishra, CPIO and Shri Vikas Singh, Sr. Manager (Law), Central Bank Kolkata attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was one of the directors in M/s Tea Pack Specialty Limited whose account was maintained with the respondent bank. He further Page 3 of 5 stated that the account was declared NPA and the respondent had filed an original application for recovery and he was impleaded as one of the respondents, therefore, he required the information for defending himself.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the matter concerning recovery from the borrower company was pending before court of law. Further, the defaulters were duly show caused and enough opportunities were given to them defend their case before DRT. Therefore, it may be assumed that the information was already under their custody as part of the files submitted before the court of law.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the information provided by the respondent was evasive and incomplete. The appellant claimed that he was one of the directors in the borrower company, hence, was affected due to the recovery proceedings initiated against the company as well as him. In view of the above, the Commission directs that if the appellant establishes that he is still the Director and authorized person of the Company then the respondent may re-visit the RTI application and provide para-wise information to the appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the required documents from the appellant. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.02.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 33, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, 4TH FLOOR, KOLKATA, W.B.-700001.

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 33, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, 4TH FLOOR, KOLKATA, W.B.-700001.

SH. ANUP KUMAR AGARWAL Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission