Harmeet Singh Sethi vs Union Bank Of India on 8 February, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harmeet Singh Sethi vs Union Bank Of India on 8 February, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.10.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 13.03.2019 and first appeal dated 21.04.2019:-

(i) "Whether any loan/financial accommodation has been availed for by M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. from Union Bank of India having its branch at 1/1 camac street police station - Shakespeare, Kolkata -

7000016 for their commercial purposes?

Page 1 of 5

If the answer of (i) above is yes, then kindly provide copies of all such document(s), if any thereof. Also indicate the date(s) execution of such document.

(ii) If any loan/financial accommodation by M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., kindly indicate the amount of such financial accommodation?

If the answer of (ii) above is yes, then kindly provide details of such account(s), if any, thereof.

(iii) Whether there is any outstanding amount with regard to such loan as mentioned in query no. (ii) If the answer of (ii) above is yes, then kindly provide the details, if any, thereof.

(iv) Whether any securities/collaterals given by M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. to Union Bank of India having its branch at 1/1 camac street, Police Station - Shakespeare sarani, Kolkata - 7000016 with respect to such loan/financial accommodation availed?

If the answer of (ii) above is yes, then kindly provide the details, if any, thereof.

(v) Whether there are guarantors (personal/corporate) for such loan/financial accommodation availed by M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. from Union Bank of India having its branch at 1/1 camac street, Police Station

- Shakespeare sarani, Kolkata - 7000016?

If the answer of (i) above is 'yes', then kindly provide copies of all such document(s), id any, thereof, obtained from such guarantors. Also indicate the date(s) of execution of such document."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 13.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 2 of 5 Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Kolkata, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.05.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 21.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 21.10.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.10.2019 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 17.05.2019 denied to provide the information u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2019 forwarded the first appeal to concerned FAA.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Varun Kumar, Deputy General Manager and Regional Head, Union Bank of India, Kolkata, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The complainant inter alia submitted that the respondent bank had claimed him to be the guarantor for the company M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. before forums including DRT and DRAT. On the other hand, they had denied him the information sought in the RTI application considering him to be a third party. Therefore, the complainant requested the Commission to initiate necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had not mentioned his nexus with the company M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. and that he was the guarantor for the said company. Therefore, they had considered the RTI application as per its contents and had denied the information bona fide. They further stated that they had the information and were ready to hand it over to the complainant before the Commission. The respondent pleaded that the erstwhile CPIO had exercised his judgment on the basis of the contents of the RTI Page 3 of 5 application wherein it was not revealed that the complainant was guarantor of the company.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent exercised their discretion while responding to the RTI application and denying the information to the complainant. However, during the course of hearing, the respondent gave an undertaking to provide the information upon confirmation of the fact that the complainant was the guarantor in the company M/s Precision Engineers and Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. That being so, and in absence of any mala fide, there appears to be no reasonable ground for initiating penal action against the CPIO. Moreover, the respondent having expressed their willingness to part with the information, no further intervention is required in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सु सुरेशचं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 07.02.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत!) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank Of India, Regional Office, Alepee Court, 1st Floor 225-a, Acharya J.c. Bose Road, Kolkata, Pin - 700 020 Page 4 of 5 First Appellate Authority, Union Bank Of India, Regional Office, Alepee Court, 1st Floor 225-a,Acharya J.c. Bose Road, Kolkata, Pin - 700 020 Harmeet Singh Sethi Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission