Central Information Commission
Samoda Nand Tiwari vs Syndicate Bank on 4 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126680
Samoda Nand Tiwari ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Syndicate Bank, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Regional Office, Morya
Tower, Dak Bangla Road,
Patna.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 24.12.2016 FA : 09.02.2017 Complaint : 03.04.2017
CPIO : 30.01.2017 FAO : 13.03.2017 Hearing : 28.08.2018
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on three points, including, inter-
Page 1 of 4alia, (i) whether Shri Vivekanand Tiwari and Sada Nand Tiwari also entered the Unit on 15.07.2013 at 12.00 am along with the owner of the Unit Shri Samoda Nand Tiwari, Shri Sita Nath Tiwari and Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwari and (ii) the names and addresses of all the security guards.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that information has been denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act stating that the bank has filed a recovery suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for recovery of the bank's dues in which the complainant is also impleaded as a respondent and that the said suit is pending and a criminal case no. 03/2014 against the complainant and others was registered with the Amarpur Police Station and investigation is ongoing in the matter. The complainant requested the Commission to inquire into the matter and direct the CPIO to provide correct and complete information to him. He also requested that penalty be imposed on both the CPIO and the FAA under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for giving incorrect information, and that disciplinary action be recommended against both the CPIO and the FAA and that compensation be awarded to him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Gadakari Sriniwas, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna, attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that in response to the RTI application a reply was provided to the complainant vide letter dated 30.01.2017. He further stated that a loan of Rs. 26.50 lakhs was given to Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill) Page 2 of 4 in the year 2011. The borrower failed to repay the loan amount and a recovery suit was filed by the bank before DRT, Patna. The complainant was also one of the respondents in the said matter before the DRT. The said recovery suit has been finalized and a decree has also been issued. However, the criminal case no. 03/2014 against the complainant and others which had been registered with the Amarpur Police Station regarding a scuffle with the security guard, who takes care of the seized rice mill is pending investigation. The respondent stated that the complainant and his family members are very influential people and if the name and address of the security guard as well as other information is disclosed, the complainant may not only threaten the witnesses etc. but also strive to influence them to vitiate the pending proceedings. The respondent further stated that the disclosure of details pertaining to the said criminal case as sought by the complainant would also weaken the bank's stand in the said matter. In view of this, the disclosure of the information sought would impede the pending investigation in the matter and hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees with the respondent that since the investigation in the matter is pending, divulging the information sought would impede the process of investigation. In view of this, disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission further observes that since an appropriate response was furnished to the complainant, it cannot be said that the CPIO had withheld the information with a malafide intention. Hence, in the Page 3 of 4 absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
6. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 31.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank Regional Office, Legal & Claim Section, Morya Tower, 2nd Floor, Morya Lok Complex, Dak Bangla Road, Patna, Bihar - 800001
2. Shri Samoda Nand Tiwari Page 4 of 4