Central Information Commission
Chittaranjan Tripathy vs Odisha Gramya Bank on 25 June, 2025
0के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/ORGRB/C/2024/117507
Chittaranjan Tripathy ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Odisha Gramya Bank,
Odisha ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 23.02.2024 FA : 27.03.2024 Complaint : 04.06.2024
CPIO : 12.03.2024 FAO : 24.04.2024 Hearing : 23.06.2025
Date of Decision: 25.06.2025
CRAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 23.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:
(i) All documents against property Mortgage loan - ********0001
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"That, the claimed information is maintained in our bank under fiduciary capacity which is immune to disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, we decline to part with the information sought by you."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 27.03.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, Page 1 of 5 false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.04.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 04.06.2024.
5. The Complainant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Tamishta Mishra, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Complainant objected against the invocation of Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he was a owner and guarantor of the mortgaged property, hence the information sought should be provided. He stated that the loan was taken by his wife.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the complainant had sought copies of documents related to a property mortgaged by Ms. Ashmini Mishra (wife of the complainant) and the record is maintained in the name of Ms. Ashmini Mishra and all records is maintained by the bank under fiduciary capacity, thus, exemption under section 8(1) (e) had been claimed. Moreover, Ms. Ashmini Mishra had informed that there is a family dispute between her and her husband. A written submission dated 21.06.2025 of the respondent is reproduced as under:-
"To begin with, the present Appellant Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy through his application dt. 13.02.2024 had intended to receive all the documents against the property mortgaged in loan account bearing no. 003213008000001 maintained at OGB, Dhauli Branch in name of Ashmini Mishra. A copy of the said RTI application is filed herewith as Annexure-A for kind appreciation of this Hon'ble Commission.
The CPIO vide her reply CPIO/LAW/33/2024, dt-12.03.2024 has informed the present appellant that "the claimed information is maintained in our bank under fiduciary capacity which is immune to disclosure under section-8(1) (e) of RTI Act, Page 2 of 5 2005. Hence we decline to part with the information sought by you". A copy of the reply made by CPIO is annexed herewith as Annexure-B. However, the applicant Chittaranjan Tripathy, preferred the First Appeal on dt.27.03.2024 Annexure-C to FAA wherein he had claimed to receive information regarding the loan & loan statement, copy of property documents & agreement relating to loan account no 003213008000001 maintained in name of Ashmini Mishra (his wife). The "First Appellate Authority" disposed of his appeal vide AA(RTI)/Law/17/2024, dt.24.04.2024 on the ground, "I concur with the ruling made by CPIO and reject your appeal on the basis of information maintained under the fiduciary capacity U/s-8(1) (e) of RTI Act 2005." The said reply is marked as Annexure-D and enclosed for kind reference of this Hon'ble Commission.
Now, apparently, being dissatisfied with the above reply of FAA, the present "Second Appeal" has been preferred before the Hon'ble CIC.
That, in view of the aforementioned factual matrix coupled with the provision of law, it can be deduced that the mentioned loan account (bearing no. 003213008000001) is maintained in the name of Smt. Ashmin Mishra at our Dhauli Branch who is the wife of Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy. She has taken one Mortgage loan amounting Rs.10 lakhs from Dhauli Branch, Odisha Grameen Bank (erstwhile Odisha Gramya Bank) by mortgaging one property in the name of her husband Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy. As per available information, Smt. Ashmini Mishra is now running "Modicare" business which is the source of repayment, and the business is running in the same building. As per available information received from Smt. Ashmini Mishra, there is a family dispute between Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy & Smt. Ashmini Mishra. However the property owner wants to sell the house as intimated by him. However as informed by both parties, there is one family dispute case between both husband & wife which is sub-juice before court. Earlier Mr. Chittaranjan Tripathy approached the branch for withdrawal of his guarantee and release of mortgaged property, which was Page 3 of 5 declined by the branch since the loan was not repaid in full. As on date the repayment of EMI is done by Smt. Ashmini Mishra (Borrower) regularly and the loan account is PA and standard as on date.
We also received a court order dated 12.03.2024 (in CMC 209/2023) which is filed by Smt. Ashmini Mishra with grievance that, the mortgaged property is the share house hold of Smt. Ashmini Mishra where she is residing in the said building along with her children & she has no other place to stay. The Hon'ble Court of Judicial Magistrate First class (LR) BBSR in CMC 209/2023 has directed Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy not to interfere in the possession of the aggrieved person (Smt. Ashmini Mishra) in the share household. He is also directed not to do any act to dispose the aggrieved person from the share household & directed to maintain status quo till conclusion of the trial. The order copy provided by Smt. Ashmini Mishra is attached herewith as Annexure E. From the above context, it is observed that at the time of disposal of the RTI application we have received information that there is a family dispute between the borrower (Smt. Ashmini Mishra) & Guarantor (Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy) & matter also relates to the mortgaged property which is a shared house-hold & on the basis of family dispute, a case (CMC 209/2023) is now sub-judice before court where court has maintained a status quo till the conclusion of trial. Hence on that basis, we had declined to share the information with Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy. But if Hon'ble CIC will direct, then we can share those documents which are executed by Sri Chittaranjan Tripathy in the capacity of Guarantor to said loan."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had provided appropriate reply to the complainant vide letter dated 12.03.2024. The respondent clarified that they are maintaining the records in the name of Ms. Ashmini Mishra under fiduciary capacity, hence, exemption claimed under section 8(1) (e) is appropriate. Further, it is not the case that the respondent has not given any reply to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. That being so and the Page 4 of 5 reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 25.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Odisha Gramya Bank, Head Office, At-Gandamunda, PO -
Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar, Odisha - 751030
2. Chittaranjan Tripathy Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)