Central Information Commission
Nitish Girish Desai vs Bank Of Baroda on 20 September, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/642774
Nitish Girish Desai ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank Of Baroda,
Valsad ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 10.07.2023 FA : 17.08.2023 SA : 03.09.2023
CPIO : 18.08.2023 FAO : 21.08.2023 Hearing : 10.09.2024
Date of Decision: 20.09.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
All the photocopy of the legal document such as title report, N.A order, construction permission, approved layout plans etc. Basis on which the bank of bank of Baroda- Tithal Road branch, valsad have given APF (approved project financial) to the project known as Karmabhumi dream city, situated at village-Pardi, Dist-Valsad, Gujarat Page 1 of 4
2. Having not received any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2023.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought is third-party information in nature, and therefore, exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005. Under Section 13(1) of The Banking Companies Act, 1970, Bank is under an obligation to hold information about its constituents in secrecy. Your request does not divulge any Bona fide public interest in seeking the information."
4. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.09.2023.
6. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Arun Singh, Deputy Regional Head, attended the hearing through video conference.
7. The appellant inter alia submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser of Flat No. 131 in the "Karmabhumi Dreamcity" Project. He further stated that the respondent bank had financed the project and granted a loan to the builders by mortgaging the property wherein he was also a flat owner. Therefore, he contended that he was entitled to the information and the respondent had denied him the information in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. He further stated that there are 108 units in the Project; to his as well as to the shock of other flat purchasers, a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was published in the newspaper wherein it had come to the knowledge of the appellant as well as other purchasers that the promoter had defaulted in making re-payment of the loan to the bank and the bank had initiated the proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the borrower and guarantor. The documents sought in the RTI application were handed over by the borrower to the bank and were cleared for loan by its panel lawyer. Since he was one of the affected parties, these documents cannot be deemed to be personal or secret documents.
Page 2 of 48. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant is third-party in nature and the title reports submitted by the builder/borrower was held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the same could not be divulged to the appellant.
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had replied on 18.08.2023 to the appellant and denied the information on the ground that the same pertained to third- party. However, the respondent relied upon provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1970, instead of the provisions of the RTI Act. Besides, the respondent having considered the documents sought in the RTI application as third-party information, could have invoked the procedure to seek consent from the concerned third-party. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to follow the procedure under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act and seek consent from the concerned third-party; the response received thereof shall be intimated to the appellant, under intimation to the Commission. In case, the consent is refused by the concerned third-party, the respondent shall rely on relevant exemption clauses under the provisions of the RTI Act while communicating the same to the appellant. The entire procedure shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 20.09.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank Of Baroda, AGM & CPIO,
Regional Office: Valsad, Valsad Region,
Mahalaxmi Tower, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001
2. Nitish Girish Desai
Page 4 of 4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)