Central Information Commission
Mr.Joginder Pal vs Bank Of Baroda on 5 March, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000250/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 5th March 2014
Date of decision : 5th March 2014
Name of the Appellant : Shri Joginder Pal,
R/o H. No. 38, Deepak Chowk,
Sonepat, Haryana
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office (DMRII) Bank of Baroda
Building, 11th Floor, Sansad Marg, New
Delhi110 001
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Rahul Gupta, OfficerLegal, was present.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal According to the appeal, the Appellant filed an RTI application on 2.9.2011, seeking information regarding the loan account of a third party. The CPIO responded on 13.9.2011, denying the information under Sections 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 22.9.2011. In his order dated 1.11.2011, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 17.1.2012.
2. The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him.
We note from the records before us that he had alleged that the third party had pledged a property belonging to the Appellant to obtain the loan in question. The Respondents submitted that as per their search report, the property belonged to the third party, which had obtained the loan. They further submitted that the Appellant had not produced any evidence to show that the property in question belonged to him.
3. The Commission is not competent to address the issue of ownership of the property in question. The Appellant has alleged that the third party used the property in question fraudulently to obtain a loan. However, he has not established any larger public interest that would warrant the disclosure of the information sought by him. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar