Central Information Commission
T M Srinivasan vs Repatriates Cooperative Finance And ... on 3 May, 2023
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंग नाथमागग, मुन नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2022/629085
CIC/RCFDB/A/2022/634074
Shri T M Srinivasan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
with Shri V Vignesh
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, REPCO Bank, TN ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri A Sudhakar - PIO
2. PIO, REPCO Home Finance Ltd., TN
Through: Shri Syed Abdul Khader Jeelani - DGM
and Shri Ankush Tiwari - Company Secretary
Date of Hearing : 02.05.2023
Date of Decision : 03.05.2023
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
629085 16.03.2022 18.04.2022 20.04.2022 16.05.2022 31.05.2022
634074 17.03.2022 01.04.2022 11.04.2022 - 23.06.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/RCFDB/A/2022/629085 (2) CIC/RCFDB/A/2022/634074 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.03.2022 and 17.03.2022 seeking information on 12 points and sub points, some of which are as under:-Page 1 of 7 Page 2 of 7
Etc. Page 3 of 7 The CPIO, Repco Home Finance Ltd., vide letter dated 29.03.2022 and 01.04.2022 replied as under:-
The PIO/Joint General Manager, Repco Bank, vide letter dated 18.04.2022 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed First Appeals dated 11.04.2022 and 20.04.2022.
The FAA/General Manager, Repco Bank, vide order dated 16.05.2022 held as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A detailed written submission has been received from the REPCO Home Finance Ltd. vide letter dated 28.04.2023 reiterating and reaffirming their claim that it is not a public authority, in the following manner:Page 4 of 7 Page 5 of 7
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. The relevant parties are heard through video conference wherein the Appellant contended that the information sought by him relates to a partition suit pending in the Trial Court Chengalpet Court. Since he is a party in the pending litigation and the information sought by him relates to members of the family who are also parties in the said partition suit, it is his contention that the information does not relate to third party. Rebutting the reply sent by the Repco Home Finance Ltd., the Appellant has placed reliance on decision dated 31.07.2019 passed by an erstwhile Bench of this Commission in appeals number CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/162356 & CIC/RCFDB/A/ 2018/163971 whereby it was held as under:
Respondents reiterated their respective contentions as already mentioned hereinabove. The PIO, REPCO Bank has also placed reliance on two past decisions of this Bench wherein while adjudicating similar queries pertaining to the REPCO Home Finance, this Bench had held as under:
I. CIC/RCFDB/A/2019/125074 titled Smt. S Rathinam vs. PIO, REPCO Bank, which had been decided by order dated 10.08.2021 as under:
"..In view of the above position, the Appellant is advised to seek appropriate remedy and approach the REPCO Home Finance, outside the purview of the RTI Act for redressal of her grievance. It appears from the averments of the Respondent that the loan had been disbursed by a non- Government organisation, which falls outside the purview of the RTI Act. Moreover, the germane issue in this case is redressal of grievance of the Appellant, which cannot be addressed under the RTI Act. The Respondent is advised to offer necessary assistance to the Appellant on humanitarian grounds."
II. CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/685298 titled Priyaranjan Sontakke vs. PIO, REPCO BANK had also been decided by order dated 06.04.2022 as under: " ..., grievance of the Appellant, relating to the REPCO Home Finance Limited cannot be addressed under the RTI Act, since the organisation in question is not a public authority. The Respondent is advised to offer necessary assistance to the Appellant on humanitarian grounds, if and when the Appellant approaches them ..."Page 6 of 7
Decision:
The above discussion reveals that the legal position with respect to the REPCO Home Finance Ltd. has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide decision dated 29.09.2015 stating that REPCO Home Finance Ltd. is a separate entity[not a subsidiary of REPCO Bank], registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. REPCO Bank holds 37.13% of shareholding in the REPCO Home Finance Ltd. and remaining shares are held by Foreign Portfolio Investors, Institutional investors, mutual fund, retail shareholders, etc. It has been specifically averred by the REPCO Home Finance Ltd. that Repco Bank is neither a holding company of Repco Home Finance Limited nor RHFL is a subsidiary concern of Repco Bank.
It is also pertinent to note that the information sought by the Appellant relates to third party and is categorised as personal information, exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Such personal information of customers is held by the banks/financial institutions, whether public or private, in fiduciary capacity and are barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The written submission dated 28.04.2023 filed by the REPCO Home Finance Ltd. is comprehensive and self explanatory as such. However, it seems copy of the same has not been sent so far to the Appellant. Hence, it is hereby directed that a complete set of the written submission dated 28.04.2023 must be supplied to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order. No further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act, in the light of the above discussion.
The substantive matter, i.e. the partition suit is already pending before the competent Court. The Appellant is at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse to obtain the desired information, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7