Central Information Commission
Manu Bhalla vs State Bank Of India on 22 June, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/613564
MANU BHALLA ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL
BUSINESS OFFICE EAST, RTI CELL,
SHARADA CHAMBERS, 4TH FLOOR,
PLOT NO. 386/2, GULTEKADI, SHANKARSHETH,
PUNE-411037, MAHARASHTRA. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20/06/2023
Date of Decision : 20/06/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15/10/2021
CPIO replied on : 29/10/2021
First appeal filed on : 23/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 08/12/2021
Second Appeal dated : 06/03/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.10.2021 seeking the following information:
"1. SBI Delhi Circle vide letter No. AO.2/R-1/RTI/1019 dated 30-08-2021 (Copy enclosed) after being satisfied that I am a necessary party in the said HUF-1
as one of the LR of Smt. Adarsh Bhalla, provided me the information as asked for on the FOUR High Value Cheques bearing Nos. 762817, 762818, 762820 & 762821 that were issued and deducted from the Account of K C CHOPRA HUF bearing Account No 31067835353. held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi, on my RTI application No SBIDL/R/E/00787 dated 11.08.2021.
2. The Bank has provided me the details of the recipients of the first two High Value cheques bearing Nos. 762817 & 762818, issued and deducted from the said account held with Stale Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi vide the ibid letter. However, complete information about the remaining two cheques bearing Nos. 762820 & 762821 have not been provided, by 581 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
3. The CPIO SBI Delhi Circle has stated in the ibid letter that the Transactions has been done by the Bund Garden Branch, PUNE (IFSC: SBIN0006319). It is thus requested that the particulars of the recipients of the balance TWO High Value cheques issued from Account No 31067835353 may kindly be shared, at the earliest. Details of the TWO Cheques are as under:
S. No Date Cheque No Amount (Rs) Particulars of Transfer A. 03.05.2019 762820 3,42,84,459 NEFT done vide UTR No SBIN719123413198 B. 06.05.2019 762821 3,42.84,459 NUT done vide UTR No SBIN919126128785."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 29.10.2021 stating as under:
"As it is third party information, the information cannot be given as the same is being exempted from the disclosure U/S 8 (i), (d), (e), (j) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2021. FAA's order dated 08.12.2021, held as under:
"With reference to your appeal dated 23.11.2021 received by us on 23.11.2021, we forward herewith a copy of the order dated 07.12.2021, passed by the FAA for your information and record."2
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Along with Rohan Bhalla present through intra-video conference. Respondent: Mamta Kumar, Regional Manager & CPIO present through video- conference.
The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the CPIO by inviting attention of the bench towards the contents of his First Appeal, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below in verbatim -
4. I, Col (Retd) MANU BHALLA {S/o Late Mrs ADARSH BHALLA D/o Late Lt Col KARTAR CHAND CHOPRA - who during his life time was the Karta of the K C Chopra, HUF }, applied for information on the K C Chopra & Son HUF bank account as my Mother had a share in the K C Chopra (HUF) after the death of K C Chopra being the only child (married Daughter) as the natural legal heir of Late Lt Col KARTAR CHAND CHOPRA, in accordance with the provision(s) of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act 1956. One, Lt Col Atul Mani Chopra, after the death of K C Chopra claimed himself to be his adopted son and started asserting himself as the Karta of K C Chopra & Son HUF and filed suits for succession certificate to grab the estate of K C Chopra in Delhi Courts.
This was challenged by my Mother in the various courts, as Atul Mani Chopra was not a legally adopted son of K C Chopra. My Mother (Smt Adarsh Bhalla) died on 22.08.2009, during the pendency of the cases that were being contested by her against Atul Mani Chopra.
5. After my Mother's death on 22-08-2009, all the siblings were made party in the various ongoing cases that were being contested by her in the different courts as her Legal Heirs (LRs), including in CS No. 9901/16.
6. Suit bearing CS No: 9901/16 that was being contested in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi was an important case, as the evidence being recorded in this case was common to the other two ongoing cases bearing PC No.42150/16 & PC No. 42452/16 that had been clubbed together. The Judgment dated 29-08-2018 given in the Court of Shri Vishal Singh, Additional District Judge -06, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in the matter K C Chopra HUF Vs Mrs Adarsh Bhalla (now deceased) (Through her LRs) was given in our (the Defendants - LRs) favour (and the remaining two cases were also decided by the Court in our favour).
3In the Judgement dated 29.08.2018 in CS No. 9901/16 (Judgement enclosed with the RTI application dated 15.10.2021) stated that Atul Mani Chopra (the Plaintiff in the said case) failed to prove that he is the adopted Son of K C Chopra vide Para 21(i)(f) of the above judgement, important aspect of the same is as under :-
"In view of absence of the requisite ceremony of giving and taking in adoption the Plaintiff (Atul Mani Chopra) utterly failed to prove that he was an adopted son of Late Col K C Chopra. The Plaintiff was neither natural nor adopted son of late Col K C Chopra. He could not be considered to be a coparcener of M/s K C Chopra & Son (HUF). The mere fact that in the school records and service records of the plaintiff, the name of his father has been mentioned as Col K C Chopra, he does not become the adopted son of K C Chopra.......... Issue No (iii) is decided in favour of the Defendants (LRs of Smt Adarsh Bhalla) and against the Plaintiff."
7. As we inherited our Mother's (Smt Adarsh Bhalla) rights, we are the sole inheritors to the estate of K C Chopra and K C Chopra and Son HUF in view of the Judgement dated 29.08.2018 and thus I am entitled to have the information that pertains to K C Chopra & Son HUF, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005, as this information was not being shared by Atul Mani Chopra who has been operating the various Bank accounts of K C Chopra and Son HUF, as per details given in Para 8 below .
8. The information being sought by the applicant pertains to the account of K C Chopra & Son HUF. The said HUF has two bank accounts, as per the ITR of the HUF (information obtained from the CPIO, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 45(1), Delhi, details of which have been shared in the application dated 15.10.2021), these are:-
(a) Account No. 35838192043 held in State Bank of India (IFS Code - SBIN0006319), Doongarse Park Branch, situated at Doongarse Park, 22, Bund Garden Road, Pune - 411001 ; and
(b) Account No. 31067835353 held in State Bank of this India (IFS Code -
SBIN0001551), Tilak Nagar Branch, situated at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110027.
9. I thereafter applied under RTI Act 2005 vide application bearing Registration No. SBIMH/R/E/21/00203 dated 21.03.2021 and obtained the information on A/c No. 35838192043 held with State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune in respect of K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) pertaining to its Statement of Account for the FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 & FY 2020-21. As, Atul Mani Chopra who has been operating the above account as its Karta has not been sharing the financial details of the HUF with us. The CPIO disposed of the above application by sharing the information as sought, after being satisfied about the credentials of the applicant and thus shared the information 4 on 15.04.2021 and we thus learnt about the fact that the said account had been closed by the unlawful Karta on 23.01.2019.
10. In the similar manner I applied to the State Bank of India Delhi Circle under RTI Act 2005 vide application bearing Registration No. SBIDL/R/E/21/00567 dated 10.06.2021 and obtained information on A/c No. 31067835353 of K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi pertaining to its Statement of Account for the FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 & FY 2020-21. The CPIO shared the information as sought, after being fully satisfied about the credentials of the applicant and thus shared the information on 08.07.2021 and thus disposed of the above application.
11. The Statement of Account received through the above information revealed that the unlawful Karta of the HUF had withdrawn Rs 13,71,37,718 /- (xxx) from the SB A/c No. 31067835353 of the HUF held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi through four "High Value Cheques" during the period 03rd- 06th May 2019.
12. Thus, a fresh application was submitted to the State Bank of India Delhi Circle under the RTI Act 2005 vide application bearing Registration No. SBIDL/R/E/21/00787 dated 11.08.2021 seeking information on the above four "High Value Cheques"
issued during the period 03rd - 06th May 2019 by the unlawful Karta of the HUF from A/c No. 31067835353 held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi in respect of K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF).
13. The CPIO shared the information as sought, after being satisfied about the credentials of the applicant once again and shared the information as available with him on 31.08.2021 vide his letter No AO2/R-1/RTI/019 dated 30.08.2021 (copy of letter placed with the application dated 15.10.2021) and thus, disposed of the above application. The information provided revealed that Atul Mani Chopra had unlawfully withdrawn Rs 13,71,37,718 /- from the HUF account and distributed the funds amongst his Family members, leaving a balance of only Rs 3647.34p in the Account, through the following four Cheques :-
(i) Cheque No. 762817 dated 03.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,400/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Only) transferred into the Account No 10930860769 of Atul Mani Chopra held with State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune.
(ii) Cheque No. 762818 dated 03.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,400/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Only) transferred into 5 Account No 10930903578 of Smt Kiran Chopra held with State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune.
(iii) Cheque No 762820 dated 03.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,459/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine Only) NEFT done vide UTR No. SBIN719123413198 transaction done by State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune.
(iv) Cheque No 762821 dated 06.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,459/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Two Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Nine Only) NEFT done vide UTR No. SBIN919126128785 transaction done by State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune.
14. The details of the first two unlawful recipients/beneficiaries from the K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) account, were shared by the CPIO, as per details given in Para 8 (i) & (ii) above of the two "High Value Cheques". But the details of the other two recipients [as per details given in Para 8 (iii) & (iv) above] were not shared as the transaction was stated to have been done by State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune. Hence, when the applicant applied again to State Bank of India, Delhi Circle to seek specific details of the remaining two unlawful recipients of the balance two "High Value Cheques" that were issued from the K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) account, they directed the request to State Bank of India, Maharashtra Circle, but nothing came out of this request, hence a fresh request was submitted.
Fact of the Case
15. That immediately after the death of K C Chopra on 14.01.1989, Atul Mani Chopra got into the act by filing a Petition bearing PC No. 42432/16 along with his sons for Succession Certificate in respect of Moveable Assets left behind by deceased K.C Chopra. on 20.11.1989, by impersonating himself as the legally adopted son of Late K.C. Chopra. Subsequently, he filed number of other cases in Delhi High Court, District Courts, etc, against Adarsh Bhalla and her sons.
16. The status of the alleged K C Chopra and Son HUF, as on 01.04.1966, on its inception and after the death of K C Chopra on 14.01.1989 based on Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, was as follows:
xxx
17. That during the pendency of the suits, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 was amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of the Act in Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma Supreme Court Judgement Dated 11-8-2020 wherein it ruled that the provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 6 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. The contrary views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Vs Phulavati and Mangammal Vs. T.B. Raju & Ors were overruled. While the opinion expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr Vs Amar 2018 3 SCC 343 given on 01.02.2018 is partly overruled to the extent it is contrary to the decision.
19. The effect of the Judgement is that with retrospective effect a married Daughter will also be treated as a coparcener in the HUF of her parents from birth, with equal rights as a son.
20. The status of the K C Chopra and Son HUF, in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling in Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma Supreme Court Judgement Dated 11-8-2020, as on 01.04.1966, 14.01.1989 on the death of K C Chopra and as on 29.08.2018 following the Judgements in PC No. 42432/16 and CS No 9901/16, is as follows:-
@ Adarsh Bhalla was born on 02.11.1930 and died on 22.08.2009. # The Judgement delivered on PC No. 42432/16 on 29th August 2018 has attained finality, as the same was not challenged by Atul Mani Chopra. Thus, Atul Mani Chopra is not entitled to the estate of K C Chopra, as ruled in the Judgement. The share of KC Chopra is thus being assigned to Adarsh Bhalla (LRs), the lone surviving coparcener of the HUF.
$ The Trial Court ruled in CS No. 9901/16 on 29th August 2018 that Atul Mani Chopra is not the adopted nor natural son of K C Chopra hence he cannot be a coparcener in the said HUF. Atul Mani Chopra has filed a time barred appeal bearing RFA No 980 of 2019 in Delhi High Court. Thus, the disposal of the 1/3rd share has been put on hold till the appeal is disposed of.
21. As we are the sole inheritors to the estate of K C Chopra and K C Chopra and Son HUF in view of the Judgement dated 29.08.2018, I thus am entitled to have the information that pertains to K C Chopra & Son HUF Bank Accounts, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act 2005.
22. The CPIO of the State Bank of India Delhi Circle has been forthcoming in sharing information with me pertaining to A/c No.31067835353 of K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi, after being fully satisfied about the credentials of the applicant. The CPIO provided me the requisite information on 08.07.2021 pertaining to the Statement of Account for the FY 2018-
19, FY 2019-20 & FY 2020-21, as requested vide my application bearing Registration No. SBIDL/R/E/21/00567 dated 10.06.2021. On perusal of the Statement of Account we found that four High Value Cheques had been issued from the account, we again 7 applied for the detail information on the four High Value Cheques vide application bearing Registration No. SBIDL/R/E/21/00787 dated 11.08.2021. The CPIO provided me detail information on the above four "High Value Cheques" including details of the first two unlawful recipients/beneficiaries (names & account details of recipients) from the K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) account issued during the period 03rd- 06th May 2019 from the HUF account, on 31.08.2021, along with the information that the Transactions were done by State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune.
23. An application was submitted to the CPIO State Bank of India Maharashtra Circle bearing Registration No. SBIMH/R/E/21/00635 dated 15.10.2021 to seek detail information of the remaining two recipients of the two high value cheques that were issued unlawfully by Atul Mani Chopra, who was a mere custodian of K C Chopra & Son HUF account held with State Bank of India Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
24. The CPIO has not shared the information as asked for that pertains to the two unlawful recipients/beneficiaries of K C Chopra and Son HUF funds, as it has been deemed to be third party information that is exempted from disclosure, as stated in his reply dated 25.10.2021. This decision came as a surprise, since in the past the same CPIO after being fully satisfied about the credentials of the applicant provided me the information on 15.04.2021 pertaining to the Statement of Account of A/c No. 35838192043 of K C CHOPRA & SON (HUF) held with State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch Pune, as requested for vide my application bearing Registration No. SBIMH/R/E/21/00203 dated 21.03.2021. From the above it is clear that the CPIO has erred, for on one hand it provided the information to the undersigned applicant and on the other hand it denies the applicant the information on the same subject matter.
Relief Sought
25. It is requested that the CPIO may please be directed to share the information on the details of the remaining two unlawful recipients/beneficiaries of K C Chopra and Son HUF funds that were illegally withdrawn from its Account held with State Bank of India, Tilak Nagar Branch, New Delhi vide Cheque No 762820 dated 03.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,459/-, NEFT done vide UTR No. SBIN719123413198 and Cheque No 762821 dated 06.5.2019 amounting to Rs 3,42,84,459/-, NEFT done vide UTR No. SBIN919126128785, transactions done by State Bank of India, Bund Garden Branch, Pune, as intimated by the CPIO of the State Bank of India Delhi Circle, vide its letter No AO-2/R-1/RTI/019 dated 30.08.2021."
The CPIO reiterated the contents of above mentioned reply.
Decision:
8The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core contention raised by the Appellant in the instant Appeal was denial of information sought by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(d),(e) & (j) of RTI Act. In this regard, the Commission arrives at the conclusion that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information of the third party more particularly the bank transaction details of the third party members of averred HUF account which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of 9 investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
Nonetheless, considering the contentions of Appellant that he is one of the legal heirs of the third party HUF, he is advised to file relevant document in support of his claim. Upon receipt of the said relevant documents to satisfy the cause of action of the Appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide readily available relevant information which may suffices the information sought by the Appellant.
The Appellant is allowed a window of 30 days to provide the relevant documents to the CPIO and in case of non-receipt of the same by the CPIO within the said time period, the case will be treated as closed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10