N. R. Chowdhury vs Ministry Of Finance on 18 March, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

N. R. Chowdhury vs Ministry Of Finance on 18 March, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.03.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 14.12.2017 and first appeal dated 09.02.2018:-

• The appellant filed suit before Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 Kolkata in O.A. 192/97 along with O.A. No. 193/97, O.A./1275/97 and T.A. No. 18/97 and R.P. No. 16/2001 arising out of T.A. No. 19/97 a judgment was finally passed and decree was obtained against Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Amrita Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Northern India Partika and Page 1 of 4 Jugantar Pvt. Ltd. on 11.02.2004 in favour of consortium bank. Hence a receiver and sale committee was formed which was headed by Shri K.P. Mishra, United Bank of India. In this connection following information is needed as under:-

(i) Whether any below mentioned properties of Amrita Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. have been sold by the receiver and sale committee formed by Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 Kolkata or K.P. Mishra representative of United Bank of India?

a) Premises No. 12 and 14 Ananda Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata.

b) 10 Storied Building situated at 41A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata.

c) Barasat Shishir Kunj situated at North 24 Pargana, Kolkata.

d) Flat No. 3 situated at 25, Almond Road, Mumbai-400026.

(ii) If Yes? Please state the sale price in which the above said properties is sold.

(iii) Also please state to whom above said properties is sold and on which dates?

(iv) Please state that whether any money is remitted against the dues of the workman a Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd.

(v) If Yes? Please provide the details.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 14.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1,Nehru Road, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not give any reply. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 25.03.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 25.03.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide any reply.

4. As per records presented by the appellant, the CPIO as well as the FAA did not reply.

5. The appellant represented by Shri Mahesh Nand Patel and on behalf of the respondent Ms Upasana Banerjee, Section Officer & CPIO, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I Kolkata, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant's representative inter alia submitted that the respondent had delivered their reply at incorrect address and therefore the appellant received delayed response.

5.2. The respondent while defending their reply submitted that they had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 16.01.2018. On receipt of the hearing notice for second appeal, they obtained a copy of the appeal dated 25,03.2018 wherein the appellant had stated that he had not received the reply to his RTI application. The respondent explained that they had replied within 30 days and that the reply being delivered at the wrong address was unintentional.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the appellant received the reply dated 16.01.2018 after filing the second appeal as the respondent had dispatched the reply at incorrect address. The respondent have provided point-wise information within 30 days from date of RTI application and the delay caused in the matter due to incorrect address appears is to be inadvertent and may not be attributable to the CPIO. However, the respondent is advised to be extremely cautious and avoid such technical errors with respect to address details as the lapse in delivery of information to the appellant may result in frustration of the objective as well as timeline laid down in the RTI Act. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 17.03.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Page 3 of 4 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, KOLKATA 9TH FLOOR, JEEVAN SUDHA BUILDING, 42C, J. L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA (W.B.) THE F.A.A, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, KOLKATA, 9TH FLOOR, JEEVAN SUDHA BUILDING, 42C, J. L. NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA (W.B.) N. R. CHOWDHURY Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission