Central Information Commission
Tushar Kanti Das vs Bank Of India on 9 October, 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/BKOIN/A/2023/131291
Tushar Kanti Das ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of India, Howrah ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.02.2023 FA : 07.04.2023 SA : 08.07.2023
CPIO : No reply FAO : Not on record Hearing : 20.09.2024
Date of Decision: 08.10.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"Lt. Kajal Saha", is the mother-in-law of "Mr. Tushar Kanti Das" and own mother of "Lt Debonila Das.
Address of "Lt. Kajal Saha": C/O Lt. Ramesh Chandra Saha, 13/1 Chakraborty Bagan Lane, Near Modho Babudanga Durga Mandir, Babudanga, P.O - Salkia, Howrah-711106 Page 1 of 8 Lt Debonila Das" who expired on 07-03-2018 is the wife of "Mr Tushar Kanti Das"
and she is the only one nominee of bank a/c and locker of "Lt. Kajal Saha".
Miss Ally Das" (Represented by her father and natural guardian)" is a minor child whose age -5.5 years (DOB: 06-08-2017) is the only girl child of "Mr. Tushar Kanti Das (Father of Ally Das)" and "Lt Debonila Das (Mother of Ally Das)" "Lt. Kajal Saha" who expired on 22-10-2021 has bank a/c and Locker in the following bank Bank of India-Salkia Branch (Address: 131/132, Grand Trunk Rd, Babudanga, Bandhaghat, Salkia, Howrah, West Bengal 711106) Waris of the bank property at present are:
1. "Miss Ally Das"
2. 2. "Mr. Tushar Kanti Das" (Ally Das by the pen of Tushar Kanti Das) To show the relation of "Mr. Tushar Kanti Das" and "Miss Ally Das" with "Lt Debonila Das", Online waris Application is submitted whose application number is:
WRSH2023150800020 Also, to show the relation of "Mr. Tushar Kanti Das" and "Miss Ally Das" with "Lt. Kajal Saha", Online waris Application is submitted whose application number is: WRSH2023150800059 • Please provide the property details i.e. "bank a/c and Locker details" of "Kajal Saha" who expired on 22-10-2021."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.04.2023. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.07.2023.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, P Banerjee, Legal Officer & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 2 of 85. The Appellant vaguely stated that he has sent some documents via email to the Respondent bank on 14.02.2024 in respect of the information sought for in the RTI Application but to no avail till date.
6. The Legal officer representing the CPIO was found to be incapable of representing the case as no relevant submission was being tendered. The hearing was concluded, and the matter was reserved for decision.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that in the gamut of documents placed on record by the Appellant, a reply dated 17.10.2023 has also been enclosed wherein the Respondent has replied with reference to a legal notice issued by the Appellant's advocate referring to the RTI Application & First Appeal under reference. The reply to the RTI Application was provided by the Senior Branch Manager stating as under:
"2. Please note that as per the records available with our Bank, there is no Information of the death of Smt. Kajal Saha and Shri Tushar Kanti Das is not connected to the account/s of Smt. Kajal Saha, In any manner whatsoever, either as Joint-holder or as nominee. Therefore, he is seeking Information pertaining to a third party, which is exempted Information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, for which his RTI application was rejected and we are also unable to provide the Information in response to your captioned notice. It is also pertinent to mention that there is no record of the death of Smt. Kajal Saha with the Bank. If Shri Tushar Kanti Das is a legal heir of account-holder, Smt. Kajal Saha, he may submit proof of death of the account-holder and proof of his being the legal heir of such deceased account- holder along with his KYC documents and seek Information as such legal heir from the Branch. Such Information can then be provided only after the Branch head has been reasonably satisfied about the death of the account-holder and about the legal heirship and Identity of the applicant, as per the documents submitted by him."
In furtherance to this, the Appellant's lawyer has again sent some objections, documents related to which has also been placed on record by the Appellant.
Page 3 of 8Now, the Commission notes a communication sent to the Appellant on 19.09.2024 by Suvendu Das, CPIO & DZM, BOI, Howrah Zone in response to the instant appeal stating as under:
"We also request reference to the numerous communications and telephonic discussions with you with regard to the impugned RTI application made by you.
We once again request you to kindly make the application on behalf of Ms. Ally Das along with proof of her being a legal heir of deceased account holder, Smt. Kajal Saha, since you have claimed that your daughter Ms. Ally Das is her legal heir. As informed to you earlier, you may also visit the Salkia Branch of our Bank along with the necessary proofs, so that the information can be provided to you. We once again reiterate that any affidavit made by you or any other person is not acceptable as a legal heir certificate or as proof of legal heirship of any person and therefore, you are requested to provide proper proof of legal heirship issued by the competent authority, to enable us to process your request."
Similarly, Suvendu Das, CPIO & DZM, BOI, Howrah Zone addressed a letter of even date to the Commission stating inter alia as under:
"3. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that this appeal/ complaint has been filed based on gross misstatements and suppression of facts by the Complainant/ Appellant.
4. The Respondent CPIO most respectfully submits that the Complainant/ Appellant has also filed a Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 18643 of 2024 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the self-same cause of action. The said Writ Petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and as such, the matter under consideration here is also sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court.
A copy of the writ petition as served to us by the Appellant/ Complainant is being submitted along with this written submission for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner.
5. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that the Appellant/ Complainant did not serve the RTI dated 09.02.2023 as attached to the appeal/ complaint under consideration, but Page 4 of 8 served a RTI application dated 06.02.2023 instead, addressed to the Public Information Officer, Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Bandhaghat Branch. The said RTI was served upon the Branch Manager of Bank of India, Salkia Branch, on 11.02.2023.
This fact is admitted by the Appellant/ Complainant as evident from the Annexure P-5 on pages 27-31 of the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant/ Complainant.
6. The Respondent CPIO most respectfully submits that he received the said RTI addressed to the Indian Bank from its Salkia Branch on 27.02.2023 following following which the office of the CPIO discussed the matter over telephone with the applicant for clarification, who then informed them that he will send a fresh RTI with correct addressee for consideration of the CPIO. The CPIO also sent an email dated 28.02.2023 to the Applicant in this regard.
A copy of the email dated 28.02.2023 is being submitted along with this written submission for your kind perusal.
7. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that instead of submitting a fresh RTI application as stated by him, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted an appeal dated 07.04.2023, received by the Bank on 13.04.2023.
8. The Respondent CPIO most respectfully submits that in his said appeal the Appellant/ Complainant mentioned an RTI application dated 09.02.2023 which was never served upon him. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice, the appeal was treated as an application and was duly responded to vide email dated 28.04.2023 after telephonic discussion with the appellant/complainant since there were several irregularities in the RTI application/appeal.
A copy of the email dated 28.04.2023 is being submitted along with this written submission for your kind perusal.
9. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that the appellant/ complainant has been seeking information regarding the accounts and locker of one Mrs. Kajal Saha, who he claims to be his deceased mother in law. He claimed to be the legal heir of his mother in law and affirmed the same on an affidavit. When the office of the Respondent CPIO explained to him that the Bank had no information of the death of Mrs. Kajal Saha from the joint holder or Page 5 of 8 nominee in her accounts and also that his affidavit was false, he requested the CPIO to not take action on the false affidavit and that he would withdraw the same and file fresh RTI application on behalf of his daughter, who was one of the legal heirs of Mrs. Kajal Saha, along with necessary proof of the same. However, the Appellant/ Complainant has not done the needful till date and has been making these frivolous complaints and false affidavits one after the other to harass the Bank into giving him the information without him having to comply the necessary formalities.
Copies of various letters and Affidavits by and/or on behalf of the Appellant/ Complainant are being submitted along with this written submission for your kind perusal.
10. The Respondent CPIO most respectfully submits that the Appellant/ Complainant has falsely stated in his RTI application/ appeal that his wife Smt. Debonila Das is the only nominee of the accounts and locker of Smt. Kajal Saha since there is other joint-holder and nominee in the said accounts and locker, who have not given any information of the death of Smt. Kajal Saha.
11. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that the Appellant/ Complainant has been repeatedly requested to submit proper proof of legal heirship since a declaration on affidavit cannot be accepted in lieu of a legal heir certificate issued by a competent authority. The Respondent CPIO further submits that the affidavit made by the Appellant/ Complainant cannot be depended upon since he has himself submitted self- contradictory affirmations in his affidavits. In this regard, the Respondent CPIO begs to draw the kind attention of the Hon'ble Commissioner to paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 18.01.2023 as sworn by the Appellant/ Complainant wherein he has stated that Ms. Ally Das is the only legal heir of Smt. Kajal Saha, and to paragraph 5 of the affidavit dated 09.01.2024 as sworn by the Appellant/ Complainant wherein he has stated that Ms. Ally Das and Mrs. Srimita Chatterjee are the legal heirs of Smt. Kajal Saha. The Respondent CPIO most respectfully submits that these self- contradictory statements on affidavit by the Appellant/ Complainant clearly show that he has been frivolously making affidavits to mislead the Bank, even though he is liable for punishment for perjury for lying on affirmation. Despite repeated requests from the Bank to submit proper proof of legal heirship, the Appellant/ Complainant has still not submitted such Page 6 of 8 proof till date. Such a request has been made to the complainant even today both by email and letter since the Respondent CPIO has full intention to resolve the issue.
12. The Respondent CPIO most humbly submits that the Appellant/ Complainant has been repeatedly requested to make the application on behalf of Ms. Ally Das, purportedly his daughter, since he has informed the Bank that Ms. Ally Das is the legal heir of Mrs. Kajal Saha after the demise of his wife Mrs. Debonila Das, who was purportedly the daughter of Mrs. Kajal Saha. The Appellant/ Complainant has not filed such application on behalf of Ms. Ally Das yet inspite of repeated requests by the Bank. Such a request has been made to the complainant even today both by email and letter since the Respondent CPIO has full intention to resolve the issue..."
8. Having perused the material on record, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that both the Appellant and the Respondent have placed on record documents and arguments overstretching the mandate of the RTI Act as the merits of the legal heirship is being extrapolated upon, veracity of which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act. It is further pertinent that access to information is not the primary cause of action for the Appellant in the instant matter as he has admittedly approached the appropriate Court of Law. In the backdrop of the detailed submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds that the denial of the information related to the averred customer account is appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
However, it is unnerving to note that the Respondent bank resorted to telephonic calls and unwarranted discussion with the Appellant as a response to the RTI Application, instead of disposing of the same as per the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, thus having caused deemed refusal to provide the information. Further, the reply to the RTI Application was never provided by the CPIO in a strict sense as the reply of 17.10.2023 is a reply by the Branch Manager to the legal notice served upon the bank by the Appellant's advocate.
Now, therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to send a proper written explanation to show cause as to why show cause proceedings should not be initiated against him for not providing any reply to the instant RTI Application within the stipulated Page 7 of 8 time frame of the RTI Act and for not having provided any reply to the same till date, rather for having passed of the reply sent to a legal notice as a reply sent to the instant RTI Application. The said written explanation of the CPIO along with the supporting documents shall reach the Commission within 15 days of the receipt of this order, failing which, stringent action may be taken in the matter.
The CPIO is also cautioned against deputing such representatives to attend the hearings before the Commission in the future who are not able to plead their case or tender any tenable argument.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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: 08.10.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank Of India, Branch Manager
& CPIO, 131/132, Grand Trunk Road,
Babudangu, Salkia, Bandhaghat,
Howrah, W. B. -711006
2. Tushar Kanti Das
Page 8 of 8
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)