Baldau Ji Kesharwani vs Indian Bank on 26 July, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Baldau Ji Kesharwani vs Indian Bank on 26 July, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.02.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03.11.2020 and first appeal dated 28.06.2021:-

"संलि त ा प दनाक 27.07.2020 रिज टड डाक से ेिषत म उ लेिखत िब दु 1 लगापत १६ पर जाँच सं या, कृ त काय वाही के साथ िब दु (A) लगापत (L) पा$रत आदेश क% मािणत ित उ' अिधिनयम क% ािवधािनक समया तग त तक ाथ+ को उपल,ध कराने का आदेश करने के स दभ म . (as mentioned in tabular format provided in para 4 below)

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03.11.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Chennai. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.01.2021replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.06.2021. The First Page 1 of 6 Appellate Authority (FAA) did not issue any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 14.02.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 14.02.2022 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 replied vide letter dated 13.01.2021and the same is reproduced as under:-

"In this regard, we inform you that since we are in the process of collecting data from our departments/ branch for the reply to these queries, the available information will be provided within 4 weeks as per provisions of RTI Act."

The CPIO further replied vide letter dated 20.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"In this regard, refer annexure being the reply / details for Point (A) to Point (L) sought in your letter dated 27.07.2020."

S. No Information sought by the Applicant Comments by the Branch A Why in the counter affidavit filed in CMWP Counter / Reply filed in No 15367 of 2013 in Hon'ble Court CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in Allahabad dated 20.07.2016 by calculating Hon'ble High Court the interest correctly from the revised rate Allahabad dated 20.7.2016 of interest rate not mentioned correctly in by the Bank. CC account No ***6214. TL A/ No ***7905 and A/c No ***8961 dated 09.06.2016 from the rate of interest mentioned in Loan Sanction Certificate? B Why in the statement of account of counter No manipulation and affidavit dated 20.07.2016 filed in Hon'ble Fabrication in Statement of High Court, Allahabad on 09.06.2016 by Accounts annexed with doing manipulation and fabrication only in counter / Reply filed in interest rate in the Term Loan and cash CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in credit account while the entire amount was Hon'ble High Court same there? Why action was not taken Allahabad. against Chief Manager, Recovery Assets, Allahabad Bank. Allahabad Bank Sri Sitaram Barkhodhia under Section 420 of IPC in relation to the manipulation and fabrication and when will it be taken ?

Page 2 of 6

C Why contempt, overlooking, disregarding Opinion dated 20.04.2017 of and disobedience of the Hon'ble High Advocate Sri PN Tripathi Court by your Advocate Sri PN Tripathi (Annexed). were done in respect of order passed by Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in CMWP No 15367 of 2013 dated 25.04.2013, order passed by Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in CMWP No 5819 dated 03.02.2009?

D Why 15 days before the notice not issued to It is not required for the applicant prior to issuing the revised reminders/ revised Recovery Recovery Certificate on 25.04.2017? Certificate as per Act. E Why was revised and corrected interest Revised Recovery Certificate rate not mentioned in the revised Recovery dated 27.04.2017 was a Certificate issued by calculating the reminder of First Recovery correct interest rate in T.L. Loan A/c No certificate dated 07.07.2012 *****7905, CC Loan A/c No ***6214 issued on 25.042017?

F Why was the recovery certificate issued on Claim Petition no. 27/2017 25.04.2017 even after the cognizance of the filed by this Shri Baldaujee suit no. 27/2017 under consideration in kesarwani before District District Consumer Forum, Allahabad Consumer Forum, while your advocate appeared himself on Allahabad. Forum has not 24.03.2017 in Hon'ble Court of District granted any Stay/interim Consumer Forum, Allahabad? order in this case. Next date of hearing is 04.02.2021.

G Why was action not taken against Sri Counter / Reply filed in Sitaram Barkhodhia Chief General CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in Manager Recovery Assets, Allahabad Hon'ble High Court Bank, Allahabad under Chapter XII Rules Allahabad dated 20.07.2016 94-96 of The Right to fair Compensation by the bank. and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

H   Why was action not taken against Sri          Counter / Reply filed in
    Sitaram Barkhodhia Chief General              CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in
    Manager Recovery Assets Allahabad Bank,       Hon'ble      High    Court
    Allahabad under Section 340 of Cr PC and      Allahabad dated 20.07.2016
    Section - 195?                                by the bank.
I   That by ignoring the above points Ato H by    Counter / Reply filed in
    you?                                          CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in
    The following loss caused to applicant:       Hon'ble      High    Court
          (i)    Loss of Subsidy from KVIC        Allahabad dated 20.07.2016
                 amounting to Rs 240000/- (as     by the bank.
                 per Annexure A) from the
                 period Feb 2012 till Jan
                 2017.
                                                                      Page 3 of 6
           (ii)  Loss of Goodwill & profit
                amount to Rs 29,30,817.00
                (as per Annexure B) for the
                time period from 1st Jan
                23013 to 31 mar 2019.
          (iii) Excess interest charged than
                defined     rate   as    per
                Sanctioned       Note     Rs
                2,64,366/- (as per Annexure
                C) till Mar,2019.
    Total amount suffered a loss of Rs
    34,35,000/- over a period of 9 year
    (approx.).

J   Why were contempt, overlooking,               All act done by the bank was

disregarding and disobedience of Points (i) as per Act and Counter / and (iii) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme Reply filed in CMWP No done by Senior Branch Manager Recovery 15367 of 2013 in Hon'ble Assets Allahabad Bank, Allahabad? High Court Allahabad dated 20.07.2016 by the bank.

K On account of your illegal revised Recovery Certificate issue as Recovery Certificate of dated 25.04.2017 per UP pubic money the applicant had been arrested and recovery Act, 1972. imprisoned on 09.06.2018 for 14 days in the Central Jail Naini like a prisoner by issuing a Revised Recovery Certificate through illegal manner due to which the applicant lost the Subsidy from KVIC, Goodwill & Profit and if you do not pay the compensation of Excess Interest Charges than defined rate as per sanctioned note Total Rs 34,35,000/- (Thirty four lacs thirty five thousands rupees) till Mar 2019 within 30 days of receipt of the application and in addition to the expenditure would be incurred in obtaining of the said amount, who is responsible for the payment of the amount of interest and when will it be paid?

L Why were contempt, overlooking, Counter / reply filed in disregarding done by you of Hon'ble CMWP No 15367 of 2013 in Supreme Court, New Delhi (From Hon'ble High Court Allahabad) by Seth Banarasi v/s District Allahabad Magistrate and Collector, Meerut, date of decision : 08 February, 1996 Citation:

1996 Law Suit (SC) 305. Appeal type -

Page 4 of 6

Civil Appeal, Appeal no 1644-1645 of 1980?

The FAA did not issue any order.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had levied inflated rate of interest on his loan account and it was different from the figures mentioned in the loan sanction certificate. He had sought information about the above discrepancy in his RTI application and the respondent had not provided the requisite information, till date of hearing. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided revised and point-wise information vide letter dated 20.01.2021, in tabular format.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had provided revised and comprehensive information vide letter dated 20.01.2021, although the appellant had raised queries seeking clarification and explanation in his RTI application. The appellant contended that he had not received the letter dated 20.01.2021. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to send their reply dated 20.01.2021 to the appellant again within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 25.07.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE (5TH FLOOR, RTI DESK) NO. 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600001 First Appellate Authority INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE (5TH FLOOR, RTI DESK) NO. 66, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI - 600001 Shri Baldau Ji Kesharwani Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission