Central Information Commission
R Soundararajan vs Drt, Madurai on 20 December, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/001078
CIC/MP/A/2016/001384
Appellant : Shri R Soundararajan, Chennai
Public Authority : Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai
Date of Hearing : October 18, 2016
Date of Decision : November 28, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Krishna Kumar, Section Officer - through VC
RTI application : 29.02.2016
CPIO's reply : 14.03.2016
First appeal : 29.03.2016
FAA's order : 08.04.2016
Second appeal : 25.04.2016
ORDER
1. Shri R Soundararajan, the appellant, had been included as a defendant in a case filed by the State Bank of India, Madurai, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, in 2010. Even after the passage of six years, the case was ongoing. The appellant wanted information pertaining to the time period taken for the completion and issuance of final order in such cases, as per the protocol, while also seeking the details of the entire procedure and limitation associated with each step of the procedure and about the governing body of all Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) in Tamil Nadu, action to be taken by the governing body if a complaint is made about a DRT for an act of professional negligence, etc. through six points.
2. The CPIO intimated the appellant that information sought by him was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(b) and (e) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA stating that the information sought should be provided and that the RTI Act was premised on disclosure being the norm and refusal being exception. The FAA intimated the appellant that The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, and The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Madurai) Regulations 2015, contained the desired information. Further, the text of the Act and the Regulations related thereto were available on the DRT's (Madurai) website. There are provisions in the Act to peruse the case file, documents to know the status of a case and to get the certified copies of the documents. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the public authority should be directed to answer all the questions made in the RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he, along with his family, had jointly bought a flat in Madurai and got it registered on 03.06.2008. After all the flats in the apartment were sold, the SBI, Madurai, filed a case in 2010 before the DRT against the builder and 33 other persons. The appellant was also included as a defendant in that matter. The appellant contended that it had been almost six years since the case was filed before the DRT, and that the proceedings were continuing at an extremely slow pace. He had, therefore, filed an application under the RTI Act in this regard. The respondent submitted the DRT was a quasi- judicial forum and followed court procedure. The text of the relevant Act/rules was available on the DRT Madurai website. Further, since the case was filed in 2010, it was heard at least 34 times. He submitted that regular sittings would be held in the case concerned after the designated authority takes charge of his office.
4. On hearing both the parties and going through the available records, the Commission observes that the respondent authority can only provide the information which is existing and available and cannot answer as to how much time will be taken to finalise the case or what action will be taken against an authority on a complaint received against it by the competent authority. The respondents had provided the information as available. The appellant can inspect the record following the court procedure, if he so desires. As the information is available in the public domain, the respondent authority is not obligated to provide the same to the appellant. The appellant appears to have a grievance and may approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for redressal of his grievance, or any other appropriate forum. The appeal is disposed of. This order also disposes of CIC/MP/A/2016/001384 as the RTI application in both cases is identical.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Debts Recovery Tribunal Debts Recovery Tribunal 3rd & 4th Floor, Kalyani Towers 3rd & 4th Floor, Kalyani Towers 4/162, Madurai-Melur Road 4/162, Madurai-Melur Road Uthangudi, Madurai-625 107 Uthangudi, Madurai-625 107 Dr. R Soundararajan 16, First Floor Pillaiyar Kovil Street Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056