Central Information Commission
Mrarun Pradhan vs State Bank Of India on 28 January, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428,
CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728,
CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946, CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,
CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369,
CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
Appellant : Shri Arun Pradhan, Allahabad.
Public Authority : State Bank of India, Allahabad/New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 14th January, 2016.
Date of Decision : 28th January, 2016
Present
Appellant : Not present
Respondent : Shri S.K. Pandaya, AGM, SBI, New Delhi &
Shri R.L. Shukla, AGM, SBI, Allahabad in
person.
ORDER
The Commission heard seventeen appeals filed by Shri Arun Pradhan on 14.01.2016. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. During the hearing the respondents stated that the appellant is neither a borrower nor guarantor in the loan to M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries. He is not the legal heir of borrower or guarantor. He is third party relating to the loan to M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries. which is a partnership firm with Sri Achal Agrawal s/o Late Ripu Daman Agrawal & Smt Abha Agrawal w/o Sri Rajiv Agrawal as partners, both R/O 268/4 Mahewa Purab Patti Allahabad. He had submitted 23 RTI applications on similar issues. The DRT issued Debt Recovery Certificate no 209/2000 to the Recovery Officer for further action in case of this account. The borrowers moved application for setting aside the decree in 2001 but Recovery Officer decided to attach the property 268/4, Mahewa Purab Patti, Allahabad in July Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 1 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 2002. The borrowers moved the Hon'ble High Court several times for relief but the petitions were dismissed.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 16.07.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; seeking attachment notice of property Arazi No. 268/4 in respect of Shri Tulsidas Ahuja, which was mortgaged in the loan account to M/s Yamuna Fan Industries.
1.2. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.09.2014 provided photocopy of the public notice published in Dainik Jan Sandesh on 12.09.2014 and informed the appellant that the documents as sought for could not be provided to third party. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 24.09.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 19.11.2014 while upholding the decision of the CPIO, held that the information could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
1.3. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 19.12.2014 on the grounds that there was no logic of giving him the information that had already become public and that he had been denied information. He requested for penalizing the CPIO and award of compensation.
1.4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand.
1.5. The Commission holds that the copy of attachment notice issued to the borrower/guarantor cannot be provided to him, being third party information but the respondents had given the copy of the notice published in the newspaper to the appellant, which was sufficient for the appellant who was not connected with the loan in any way. No larger public interest was involved in the matter. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 2 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000426:
2. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.06.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; seeking to know whether Arazi No. 268/3, Mauja Mahawa Purab Patti, Uprhar, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchana, Dist. Allahabad was mortgaged in M/s Yamuna Fan Industries loan account along with details of mortgaged property.
2.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.08.2014 intimated the appellant that property No. 268/4 was mortgaged by late Ripu Daman Agrawal in loan account of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries in favour of SBI. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 21.10.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 13.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
2.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 27.01.2015 stating that the information provided was incorrect and misleading even though the respondent had the information asked for and asked for penalizing the CPIO and award of compensation for himself.
2.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the details of property mortgaged in the loan account could not be provided to the appellant.
2.4. The Commission holds that the disclosable information under the RTI Act, 2005 had been provided to the appellant. The property details mortgaged by late Ripudman Agrawal against loan account to M/s Yamuna Fan Industries, as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1) (e) and
(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and held by the respondents in fiduciary capacity. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000428:
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 3 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
3. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.06.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; enclosing Khatauni no 330 Mahewa Patti, Purab Uprhar stating that the owner of the property offered to sale him the said land. He sought to know whether the land had been mortgaged against loan to M/s Yamuna Fan Industries and if yes, provide the details of the property.
3.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 11.08.2014 intimated the appellant that property No. 268/4 was mortgaged by late Ripu Daman Agrawal in loan account of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries in favour of SBI. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 21.10.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 19.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
3.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 27.01.2015 on the grounds that sought for information provided and requested for penalizing the CPIO and award of compensation.
3.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided information as per records within the stipulated period.
3.4. The Commission holds that the CPIO had responded to the appellant appropriately and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000447:
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 4 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
4. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 29.09.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; sought to know as per Registration Act 1908 the stamp duty that was paid by SBI for registration of the mortgage of property No. 268/4, Mehwa Patti Purab by late Ripduman Agrawal on 10.10.1989 4.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 31.10.2014 denied the information being third party information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 22.12.2014 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 30.01.2015 on the grounds that that the information sought for did not relate to third party as it is with reference to a public notice. No information was provided to him and therefore, he asked for penalizing the CPIO for delay and for the award of compensation for himself.
4.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand.
4.4. The Commission holds that the amount of stamp duty paid by SBI under the Registration Act 1908 can be divulged to the appellant. The CPIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant, if available, within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000482:
5. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 18.08.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; sought clarification with reference to SBI's letter No. SARB/All/Misc/346 dated 11.08.02014 pertaining to the mortgaged property no. 268/4 by late Ripudman Agrawal towards loan account to M/s Yamuna Fan Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 5 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 Industries. He stated that he got the property details from Hon'ble DRT, in which property No. 268/3 was mentioned. Therefore, he sought the information.
5.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.09.2014 provided a copy of the registered bond in respect of property No. 268/4 which was mortgaged by late Ripduman Agrawal towards loan account to M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 03.10.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 02.12.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
5.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 22.12.2014 for seeking the same information, penalizing the CPIO and award of compensation.
5.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had provided information as available with them and even gave a copy of the registered bond.
5.4. The Commission holds that the CPIO had clarified the position to the appellant but had wrongly provided copy of registered bond for mortgaging the property by late Ripduman Agrawal being third party information. The CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future while dealing with RTI matters. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000727:
6. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 03.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad and sought information with reference to SBI's letter No,. SARB/All/Misc/470 dated 25.09.2014 and the copy of the lien by SBI against property Arazi No. 268/4 in the Office of Sub Registrar Karchana and the stamp duty paid by SBI for creating lien on mortgaged property.
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 6 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 6.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2014 denied the information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.12.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 10.01.2015 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
6.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 21.02.2015 on the grounds that the information sought for was wrongly denied by the respondents without following the procedure of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought third party information which was denied by the CPIO.
6.4. The Commission holds that Section 11(1) stipulates that "where the CPIO intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the CPIO shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the CPIO intends to disclose the information and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about the disclosure of information." The CPIO considered that the appellant was in no way connected with the loan account of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries, denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission holds that the stamp duty paid by the SBI for creating lien on mortgaged property, is disclosable information. The CPIO is directed to provide the amount of stamp duty paid by the SBI for creating lien on mortgaged property, if available, within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000728:
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 7 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
7. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 04.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad seeking information with reference to SBI's letter No,. SARB/All/Misc/470 dated 25.09.2014 in registered security bond and other documents in respect of Arazi No. 268/4 was mentioned by the SBI, whereas Hon'ble DRT had provided the copy of Arazi No. 268/3 and sought copy of registered security bond.
7.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2014 denied the information under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.12.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 10.01.2015 upheld the decision of the CPIO.
7.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 23.02.2015 on the grounds that sought for information denied by the respondents and requested for award of compensation.
7.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought third party information which was denied by the CPIO.
7.4. The Commission holds that the information as sought for by the appellant cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest. The decision of respondents is upheld. The Commission observes that same information about DRT mentioning the property No. 268/3 and the bank giving the no. as 268/4 had been asked by the appellant through his RTI application dated 18.8.2014 also. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000729:
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 8 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
8. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 22.09.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; sought information with reference to public notice published in Dainik Jan Sandesh by Shri Achal Agrawal on 12.09.2014 - copy of mortgaged deed executed by Achal Agrawal's father late Ripudaman Agrawal in favour of SBI on 10.10.1989 and copy of letter issued by Assistant General Manager to Dainik Jan Sandesh for publishing the advertisement.
8.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.10.2014 informed the appellant that the case was pending before Hon'ble Court and advised him to approach them for any further information regarding the matter. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 27.11.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 22.12.2014 directed the CPIO to provide point-wise reply to the appellant within ten days.
8.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 20.02.2015 on the grounds of not having received the copy of letter given by the AGM to Dainik Jan Sandesh Times and was not given the copies documents asked for by him in spite of the FAA's order. He, therefore, asked for the information sought by him, requested for penalizing the CPIO and award of compensation for himself.
8.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had appropriately responded to the appellant and complied with the directions of the FAA vide letter dated 12.01.2015.
8.4. The Commission observes that the FAA had not ordered the CPIO to provide information asked for by the appellant but had asked for giving a point-wise reply, which was complied with by the CPIO vide letter dated 12.01.2015. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000946:
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 9 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954
9. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.11.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad and sought to know the rule under which photocopy could not be provided to anyone except to the borrower and guarantor; was the said restriction to be applied to the mortgaged property for Yamuna Fan Industries account only or was applicable to all loan accounts.
9.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.10.2014 informed the appellant that the information related to the customer of the bank could not be provided to any third party without the written consent of borrower or guarantor. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 17.0102015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 27.02.2015 while upholding the decision of the CPIO, held that the bank's customers information could not be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
9.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 17.04.2015 stating that he did not get the title deed of the mortgaged land/property and Section 11(1) was not followed. He requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
9.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the appellant had sought information relating to third party, which was denied u/s 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information relating to bank's customer.
9.4. The Commission holds that the title deed mortgaged by Yamuna Fan Industries cannot be provided under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Section 11(1) stipulates that "where the CPIO intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the CPIO shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the CPIO intends Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 10 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 to disclose the information and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about the disclosure of information." The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001129:
10. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 15.12.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; seeking copy of the title deed of Arazi No. 268/4, with reference to public notice published by SBI in Dainik Jan Sandesh Times on 12.09.2014, which was mortgaged by late Ripudaman Agrawal against loan account of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries, 10.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.01.2015 informed the appellant that in this regard the respondent authority had vide letter No. SARB/Alld/Other/573 already intimated about the factual position. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 24.01.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 12.03.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
10.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 06.05.2015 stating that if the title deed could not be provided to him being third party information, he should not have been given any information in the matter. He had not received any information in the matter and therefore, requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
10.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the appellant had sought information relating to third party, which was denied u/s 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 being third party information relating to bank's customer.
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 11 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 10.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001343:
11. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 15.12.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad and sought to know whether any outstanding loan was to be recovered against the mortgaged property of Arazino. 268/4 of late Tulsidas Ahuja, and if so the details of the loan account.
11.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.12.2014 informed the appellant that property no. 268/4, Mahewa, Purab Patti Uparhar was mortgaged for loan in favour of SBI.. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 19.01.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 27.02.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
11.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 16.04.2015 on the grounds that he was not given a clear response to his RTI application. He requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
11.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that they had intimated that property No. 268/4 was mortgaged with the bank against the loan account of Yamuna Fan Industries.
11.4. The Commission holds that the details of loan account cannot be provided to the appellant under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, being third party information. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001365:
12. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 27.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 12 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 Branch (SARB), Allahabad asking for the reasons for publishing false public notice in Dainik Jan Sandesh Times on 12.09.2014 when the original documents of Arazi No. 268/4, Mahewa Patti Purab Uparhar, Allahabad were deposited with the SBI.
12.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.03.2015 informed the appellant that late Ripudaman Agrawal had executed registered security bond for loan to M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries in respect of property no. 268/4, Mahewa, Purab Patti Uparhar, Allahabad, the original copy of the same was deposited in the Hon'ble Court. The CPIO confirmed that no false public notice was published by the bank. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 08.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
12.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 22.06.2015 on the grounds that the respondents authority had provided information about the original document and not about the registered security bond and that he had not been provided the information as asked for by him and requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
12.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that the appellant had been informed that the document mentioned by the appellant was deposited in the Hon'ble Court.
12.4. The Commission holds that the appellant had been appropriately responded to by the CPIO. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001366:
13. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 29.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; sought to know why the bank had not taken any action against Shri Tulsidas Ahuja whose land Arazi no. 268/4, Mahewa Tehsil Karchana Dist. Allahabad was mortgaged against loan account of M/s Yamuna Fan Industries; whether action against Shri Tulsiddar Ahuja was not taken due to the full repayment Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 13 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 of loan of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries and sought for details regarding the repayment of the loan.
13.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2015 informed the appellant that since the property Arazi No. 268/4, Mahewa, Purab Patti Uparhar, Allahabad, was mortgaged by late Ripudaman Agrawal against loan account to M/s Yamuna Fan Industries, hence there was no question to take any action against Shri Tulsidas Ahuja. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 08.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
13.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 02.06.2015 on the grounds that information sought by him was not provided by the respondents and requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO, as he had been given incomplete and misleading information.
13.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO had provided a clear response to the queries raised by the appellant and regretted for the slight delay in responding to the appellant.
13.4. The Commission holds that the appellant had been appropriately responded to by the CPIO. The decision of respondents is upheld. The CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future and ensure timely disposal of RTI applications as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001367:
14. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 29.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad and sought to know with reference to SBI's letter No. SARB/Alld/Other/824 dated 12.01.2015 as to why different information was provided by SBI on the same subject; which of the three responses provided by SBI was Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 14 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 correct or all the information provided was false; if all the information was false, then what was true.
14.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2015 confirmed that the correct information as per record was provided by the CPIO. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 09.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
14.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 02.06.2015 on the grounds that the information sought was not provided by the respondents and requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
14.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents confirmed that the CPIO had provided information to the appellant as per records and no false information was provided to the appellant.
14.4. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and upholds their decision. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001369:
15. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 17.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad with reference to SBI's letter No. SARB/Alld/Other/727 dated 22.12.2014 and sought copy of information given to the borrower and guarantor by the SBI.
15.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 04.03.2015 informed the appellant that action is being taken to intimate the borrower and the guarantor. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 05.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2015 advised the appellant to refer to refer to their order No. 2015/106 letter No. SAMRO/DEL/1940 through which it Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 15 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 had been conveyed that the information sought by the appellant come within the purview of the exemption available under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
15.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 02.06.2015 on the grounds that the copy of objection filed by borrower and guarantor was not provided, therefore he should be provided the information asked for by him.
15.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had been appropriately responded by the CPIO and FAA held that information relating to bank's customers exempt u/s 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
15.4. The Commission holds that Section 11(1) stipulates that "where the CPIO intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the CPIO shall within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the CPIO intends to disclose the information and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about the disclosure of information." The Commission finds no reason to intervene with the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001370:
16. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 11.01.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad desiring to know whether any other title deed of Arazi no. 268/4, Mahewa Patti Purab, Uparhar Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchana, Distt. Allahabad rakba 1 bigha 6 biswa was available with SBI or not and asked for a copy of the same, if it was available.
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 16 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 16.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2015 informed the appellant that the said property was mortgaged by late Ripudman Agrawal against loan account to M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries. The copy of registered security bond was deposited with Hon'ble DRT and advised the appellant to approach Hon'ble DRT in this regard. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 05.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2015 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
16.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 02.06.2015 on the grounds that the information sought for by him was not provided by the respondents and requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
16.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the appellant had been appropriately responded by the CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2015.
16.4. The Commission holds that the CPIO had responded to the appellant as per available records. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
Case No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001954:
17. The appellant submitted RTI application dated 09.06.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Allahabad; stating that he had received an offer for the sale of property measuring 505 sq. yards out of Arazi No. 268/4, Mehwa Patti Purab, Uparhar, Tehsil Karchana which was shown as Khatauni No. 0135 in Tehsil records in the name of Shri Tulsidas Ahuja. He sought to know whether the said property was mortgaged against loan account of M/s. Yamuna Fan Industries.
17.1. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.07.2014 provided photocopy of Dainik Jagaran, Allahabad dated 14.09.2011 in which the detailed information had been given by the SBI. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 17 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 17.07.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
17.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the respondents, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission on 02.09.2014 questioning the authenticity of the material that was given in the newspaper and requested for award of compensation and penalizing the CPIO.
17.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondents stated that the CPIO vide letter dated 03.07.2014 provided information as available and as given by SBI to the newspaper to the appellant within the stipulated period by giving him a copy of the same.
17.4. The Commission holds that the CPIO had appropriately responded to the appellant within the stipulated period. The decision of respondents is upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
18. The Commission observes that the appellant had filed seventeen RTI applications pertaining to the property No. Arazi 268/4, Mehwa Patti Purab, Uparhar, Tehsil Karchana. The appellant is neither a borrower nor guarantor in the loan account to M/s Yamuna Fan Industries. The appellant, being third party, has no locus standi to seek information in respect of loan account of Yamuna Fan Industries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." A perusal of the RTI applications and subsequent appeals show that these were not focused at seeking any clear information. The appellant's absence during the Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 18 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954 hearing, when as many as 17 cases were to be heard is clearly indicative of his apathy towards the information being sought. The appellant is advised to refrain from filing repeated RTI applications on the same issues.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 011-26105027 Address of the parties:
Shri Arun Pradhan, 1, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Opp. High Court), Allahabad-211002.
The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 4, Kutchery Road, 1st Floor, Allahabad-211002.
The GM (SAMRO-North)/FAA State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Group (SAMG), Local Head Office complex, 2nd Floor, 'A' Block, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2015/000048, CIC/MP/A/2015/000426, CIC/MP/A/2015/000428, CIC/MP/A/2015/000447, 19 CIC/MP/A/2015/000482, CIC/MP/A/2015/000727, CIC/MP/A/2015/000728, CIC/MP/A/2015/000729, CIC/MP/A/2015/000946,CIC/MP/A/2015/001129, CIC/MP/A/2015/001343,CIC/MP/A/2015/001365, CIC/MP/A/2015/001366, CIC/MP/A/2015/001367, CIC/MP/A/2015/001369, CIC/MP/A/2015/001370, CIC/MP/A/2015/001954