Sharda Aggarwal vs Canara Bank on 6 April, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sharda Aggarwal vs Canara Bank on 6 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.11.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.06.2021 and first appeal dated 06.08.2021:-

 The information sought regarding details of C/C AC No.: ************178 in the name of CHITRAKOOT, SONEPAT in whichthe appellant has been shown to be a guarantor.

(i) Provide a copy of A/C Opening Form of the subject Account.

(ii) Provide a copy of "Agreement" if any, entered in to by your bank with CHITRAKOOT, SONEPAT for the purposes of advancing any money to it under your Cash Credit Facilities and./or any other facility.

(iii) Provide complete Statement of Account right from the beginning uptill today.

Page 1 of 5

(iv) Provide"Audit Reports" done either by your local Auditors and/or Auditors from your Senior Office. She has been told that such type of audits are invariably done by your bank at regular intervals.

(v) Providecopies of all the "Stock/Inventory Statements" furnished by the Principal Borrower to your bank from time to time against the loan amount, if any, taken by it from your bank by hypothecation of such stocks/inventory.

(vi) Providecopies of all the "Inspection Reports" with regard to the inspection of the premises of CHITRAKOOT, SONEPAT by your officers/staff from time to time alongwith the name and designation of the Inspecting Officer/Staff.

(vii) Providecopies of all your "Rules and Regulations" framed by your bank for the purposes of furnishing such "Stock/Inventory Statements" which all your borrowers are required to follow and obey.

(viii) Provide"Margin Percentage" and "Drawing Power Percentage" settled by your bank with the Principal Borrower in the subject A/C.

(ix) Providecomplete statement as to whether the Principal Borrower ever violated these margins, stated above and whether its A/C ever violated the 'Net Drawing Power" if yes, then please send me a date-wise statement clearly reflecting the amount of "Drawing Power" and also the amount of "Overdrawn Amount" in the subject A/C.

(x) Providecopies of each and every document/paper pertaining to this subject A/C which were got executed by both the parties either at the beginning of the A/C or later on.

(xi) Providecopy of "Guarantee Deed", if any purported to be executed and signed by me.

(xii) Provide a copy of the Title Deed, if any, alleged to have been mortgaged with the bank by me.

(xiii) Providea copy of the "Mortgage Deed" if any.

(xiv) Providethe present status of the CHITRAKOOT, SONEPAT i.e. whether it is still working or not; if yes, then tell her the name and designation of the person who is presently in-charge of the business operations; and also furnishthe latest STOCK/INVENTORY statement of the Unit as on today Page 2 of 5

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.06.2021under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO),Canara Bank, Karnal.The CPIO vide letter dated 02.07.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 06.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 08.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 15.11.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated15.11.2021 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 02.07.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"(1) As to Point No. (i), (ii), (iii),(x), (xi), (xii) & (xiii) of your RTI application.

The sought information pertains to normal banking operations/ procedures is made available through normal regular procedures to the guarantor in accordance with the banking system. To obtain the sought information, being the loan account holder/borrower, please contact our Rohtak Main Branch and obtain the sought information.

(2) As to Point No (iv),(v), (vi) & (vii) of your RTI application. The sought information is maintained exclusively for the internal purposes of the bank. Further there is no public interest at large.

(3) As to Point No (viii), (ix) and (xiv) of your RTI application.

The information sought by you is in nature of seeking clarification / opinion / answer to question / queries, which does not fall under the purview of definition of 'information' in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 and hence we are unable to provide the requested information."

The FAA vide order dated 08.09.2021 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Chandrasekhar, PIO, Canara Bank, Karnal, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 5

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 02.07.2021 wherein it was asked the appellant to obtain the information from the concerned Branch against point nos. (i) to (iii) and (x) to (xiii) of the RTI application through normal regular procedure. They further submitted that information sought on point nos. (iv) to (vii) was maintained exclusively for internal purpose hence the same was denied. As regard to point nos. (viii), (ix) and (xiv), they stated that information sought was in the nature of seeking clarification / opinion / answer to question / queries, which does not fall under the purview of definition of 'information' in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. They also informed that recovery suit was filed before the DRT and the matter was pending.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete, evasive and misleading. The appellant sought information regarding account no. ************178 in the name of CHITRAKOOT, Sonepat wherein she was a guarantor. It may not be out of place to mention that the guarantor of the loan account was entitled for the information/documents related to such account.During the course of hearing, the respondent also submitted that they had filed suit before DRT and the matter was pending. The appellant having been affected by the action taken by the bank as she was the guarantor in the aforesaid loan account. Besides, the matter was before DRT was not a ground to deny the information. Public interest demands that the information be disclosed to the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent is directed that the RTI application be re-visited and self- contained point-wise information related to the loan account be made available to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 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) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 03.04.2023 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy आर R. Sitarama Murthy ( . सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक ) 011-26181927( ०११ २६१८१९२७

- ) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Canara Bank Circle Office BaySite No 17-18, Sector 12,Karnal 132001 First Appellate Authority Canara Bank Circle Office BaySite No 17-18, Sector 12, Karnal 132001 Ms Sharda Aggarwal Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission