Avinash Kumar Kaushal vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 9 September, 2021

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Avinash Kumar Kaushal vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 9 September, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 30.05.2018 and first appeal dated 02.07.2018:-

 The applicant wanted to know the following information in connection with the alleged claim of the Bank in respect of mortgage of House No.1317, Sector 15B, Chandigarh (which is owned by the applicant) in the account of M/s Oriental Motors of civil Lines. Bathinda Branch.

Page 1 of 8

(i) If the bank had the photocopy of the title deed of H. No.1317, on its record.

Provide the photocopy of the title deed.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.06.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.08.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 05.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.11.2018 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 vide letter dated 07.06.2018 denied the information under section 8 (1)

(d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

Hearing on 17.11.2020 4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Davendra Kumar, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim order dated 08.12.2020 4.1. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 08.12.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records,observes that the appellant has sought information relating to his own property i.e. House No. 1317, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. However, the respondent denied the information without providing Page 2 of 8 sufficient reasons. In view of the malfeasance as pointed out by the appellant in the matter, the First Appellate Authority is directed to inquire into the matter and submit a report bringing out the facts of the case as well as malfeasance, if any, as alleged by the appellant within six weeks from date of receipt of this order.The Registry of this Bench is also directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Devinder Kumar, present CPIO as well as to Shri Sardar Satvender Singh, the then CPIO, to show cause as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information. All written explanations may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days."

Hearing on 06.04.2021 4.3. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Devinder Kumar, CPIO & Chief Manager and Shri Vikas Kumar, Law Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim order dated 08.04.2021 4.4. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 08.04.2021:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records observes that the First Appellate Authority, Shri Gopal Krishan, has not submitted any report as directed by the Commission in its interim order dated 08.12.2020. Further, the CPIO had also failed to furnish the requisite information/reply despite more than two and half years having elapsed. Moreover, the respondent have not provided any explanation in response to the show-cause notices issued to them. Thus, it appears that the respondent haveno regard to the RTI Act as well as to the Commission. In view of the power conferred under section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission may take any such steps as may be necessary to secure the compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act. Accordingly, in the administration of justice and in order to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Page 3 of 8 Authority was directed in the interim order dated 08.12.2020 to inquire into the matter and submit a report within six weeks bringing out the facts of the case as well as malfeasance, if any, as alleged by the appellant. However, the same was not done by the FAA till 06.04.2021 i.e. on the date of hearing.Therefore, by invoking provisions contained under sections 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act read with the Right to Information Rules, 2012, Shri Gopal Krishan, the FAA, (deemed CPIO) is show caused for not complying with the directions of the Commission and Shri Sardar Satvender Singh, the then CPIO and Shri Devinder Kumar, present CPIO are show caused for not furnishing the complete information to the appellant as to why action under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be initiated against each of them. All written submissions by the aforementioned officers must be uploaded to the Commission's web portal within 21 days. The respondent is further directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information/reply to the appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, if not already provided and a copy of the same may be uploaded on the Commission's portal. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.

Hearing on 16.07.2021

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Devinder Kumar, CPIO & Chief Manager and Shri Vikas Kumar, Law Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda, Shri Nitai Chandra Das CPIO, Asstt. General Manager, Shri Shreyas Santra, Manager Punjab & Sind Bank, Delhi attended the hearing through video conference.Shri Gopal Krishan, FAA, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda attended the hearing through audio.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that his house No. 1317, Sector -15-B, Chandigarh, in which he had been residing since 1983 was auctioned by the bank although it was never mortgaged to the respondent bank.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that as per their record M/s Oriental Motors, a partnership firm having partners Shri Dil Bhajan Singh, Page 4 of 8 S/O Shri Arjan Singh, Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, W/O Shri Dil Bhajan Singh and Smt. Gurtej Kaur, W/O Captain Ranbir Singh, was availing various credit facilities from the respondent bank which were originally sanctioned on 16.10.1980 and were subsequently enhanced from time to time. Apart from other properties one H. No. 1317 Sector 158, Chandigarh in the name of Smt. Pushpinder Kaur was taken as security by the Bank. As per record maintained with the respondent Bank, the file containing all the original documents pertaining to credit facilities availed by M/s Oriental Motors was stolen and a report against the said theft was lodged by the bank with Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda and FIR no. 253 dated 19.08.1987 was registered. They further submitted that since M/s Oriental Motors failed to repay their dues, Bank filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,15,82,549.79/- in the court or DRT. The DRT, Chandigarh finally passed the decree/issued Recovery Certificate in favour of the Bank relying upon the FIR No. 253 dated 19.08.1987 and other secondary evidences lead by the Bank to substantiate its claim on 12.06.2002. It was further informed that bank had yet to recover all its dues in terms of Order dated 12.06.2002 and the case was pending before the Recovery officer, DRT Chandigarh. They stated that the appellant was well aware of all the facts and he had filed a case before the DRT, Chandigarh which was pending.

5.3. Besides, the respondent contended that the applicant Shri Avinash Kumar Kaushal claimed himself to be the owner of property in question but he did not attach any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of which, the information sought was denied on the ground of third-party information and the same was exempted from its disclosure under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, they argued that the appellant had right and access to the case file before DRT and documents filed by the Bank as secondary evidence for substantiating its claim, and could inspect the case file and even could get the certified copies of all such documents from court after paying nominal fee under the rules.

5.4. The respondent further stated that there was no malfeasance on the part of CPIO and the First Appellate Authority as alleged by the appellant. The FAA further expressed their regret that due to the outbreak of Covid -19, the present inquiry could Page 5 of 8 not be completed within the stipulated period as the information /record had been sought from various offices and from the offices of the concerned advocates handling the case. They informed that they had deep regards and respect for the Hon'ble Central Information Commission and the RTI Act and delay in completing enquiry was not intentional and was because of the circumstances beyond their control. They tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to Commission as well as the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the FAA had submitted their detailed report in compliance with the interim order dated 18.12.2020 of the Commission. Perusal of the said report reveals that the appellant sought copy of the title deed of the aforesaid property which as per the bank's record was already mortgaged with the bank way back in the year 1980 by Smt. Pushpinder Kaur being real owner at that point of time. Subsequently, the said property was purchased by the appellant and had possession of the property. It may not be out of place to mention that ownership of the property was in dispute and matter was pending before the DRT, Chandigarh. As per the submissions made by the respondent, the file containing all the original documents pertaining to credit facilities availed by M/s Oriental Motors was stolen and a report against the said theft was lodged by the bank with Police Station Kotwali Bhatinda. Therefore, the respondent expressed their inability to provide certified copies of the property documents sought by the appellant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that the information sought by the appellant was not available on their record within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. Further, the written explanations submitted by the respondents were reasonable and there was no conscious and deliberate attempt to withhold the information. In absence of any mala fide, there appears to be no reason for taking penal action against the CPIOs. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to Shri Gopal Krishan, the FAA, (deemed CPIO), Shri Sardar Satvender Singh, the then CPIO and Page 6 of 8 Shri Devinder Kumar, present CPIO are hereby dropped. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.09.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

Page 7 of 8

CPIO:

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK 100 Feet Road, Civil Station, Bathinda, PUNJAB THE F.A.A, PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, HEADOFFICE, LAW &RECOVERY DEPTT., 5TH FLOOR, 21, RAJINDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI CPIO: 1. SH. DEVINDER KUMAR (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, 100 FEET ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BATHINDA, PUNJAB 2 SH. DEVINDER KUMAR (C.P.I.O) PUNJAB AND SIND BANK, 100 FEET ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BATHINDA, PUNJAB (FOR FORWARDING TO THE THEN C.P.I.O SH. SARDAR SATVENDER SINGH)

3. SHRI GOPAL KRISHAN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, (DEEMED C.P.I.O) PUNJAB & SIND BANK, 6TH FLOOR, BANK HOUSE, 21, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110 008 SH. AVINASH KUMAR KAUSHAL Page 8 of 8

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission