Central Information Commission
Kamoda Nand Tiwari vs Syndicate Bank on 4 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126681 and
CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126682
Kamoda Nand Tiwari ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Syndicate Bank ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Regional Office: Legal &
Claim Section, Morya
Tower, Patna.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI: CPIO: FA: FAAO: Complaint: Hearing:
01.01.2017 31.01.2017 14.02.2017 13.03.2017 10.04.2017 28.08.2018
31.12.2016 31.01.2017 13.02.2017 13.03.2017 04.04.2017 28.08.2018
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed the above mentioned two complaints against the CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna with respect to his two RTI Page 1 of 6 applications. Both the complaints are being clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126681
2. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on three points pertaining to the bank account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX43 of Kamla Food Processing Industry, including, inter-alia, (i) the interest/loan instalment due in respect of the said account as on 30.03.2011, and (ii) whether the said account was declared as NPA due to the account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX91 having been declared as NPA on 14.05.2011 or due to any other reasons as per the record.
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126682
3. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on four points pertaining to the loan amount due in the bank account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX91 of Kamla Food Processing Industry, including, inter-alia, (i) the interest/loan instalment due in respect of the said account as on 30.03.2011, and (ii) whether the said account was declared as NPA due to the account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX43 having been declared as NPA on 14.05.2011 or due to any other reasons as per the record.
4. The complainant filed two complaints before the Commission on the grounds that information has been denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the Page 2 of 6 RTI Act stating that the bank has filed a recovery suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for recovery of the bank's dues in which the complainant is also impleaded as a respondent and that the said suit is pending. The complainant requested the Commission to inquire into the matter and direct the CPIO to provide correct and complete information to him. He also requested that penalty be imposed on both the CPIO and the FAA under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for giving incorrect information, and that disciplinary action be recommended against both the CPIO and the FAA and that compensation be awarded to him.
Hearing:
5. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Gadakari Srinivas, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna, attended the hearing through video conferencing.
6. The respondent stated that a loan of Rs. 26.50 lakhs was given to Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill) in the year 2011. The borrower failed to repay the loan amount and a recovery suit was filed by the bank before DRT, Patna. The complainant was also one of the respondents in the said matter before the DRT. Since, the information sought in all the above said RTI applications pertains to Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill), in which the complainant is one of the partners and at the relevant time the recovery suit was pending before DRT, Patna, the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the disclosure of information would have impeded the aforesaid proceedings. He admitted that the said recovery suit has been finalized and a decree has also been issued. The respondent also stated that the complainant and Page 3 of 6 his family members have filed more than 50 RTI applications in the Bank, seeking repetitive information as a tool to impede the proceedings for recovery of dues and to waste the valuable time of the Bank officials. The respondent added that in compliance with the Commission's earlier order dated 31.05.2018 in similar matters the information sought for has been provided to one of the partners of the Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill) vide letter dated 09.07.2018.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that in response to all the above said RTI applications the CPIO denied information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act stating that a recovery suit was pending before DRT, Patna. However, this exemption has been incorrectly invoked as mere pendency of a matter before a court of law is not sufficient justification for withholding the information. The Commission further observes that the exemption was claimed due to an error of judgment on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. Moreover, in a decision in the matter of Kripa Shanker v. Central Information Commission- judgment dated 18.09.2017 in W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, the High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is Page 4 of 6 exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
8. In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
9. With the above observations, both the complaints are disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 29.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank Regional Office: Legal & Claim Section, Morya Tower, 2nd Floor, Morya Lok Complex, Dak Bangla Road, Patna, Bihar - 800001.
2. Shri Kamoda Nand Tiwari Page 6 of 6