Sameer Hamsa Ramla vs Union Bank Of India on 9 April, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sameer Hamsa Ramla vs Union Bank Of India on 9 April, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.09.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.05.2017 and first appeal dated 18.07.2017:-

(i) The amount of Gold loan sanctioned and disbursed by Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram during 01st March 2012 to 30th April 2012 to my Ex-

wife Mrs. Mymoona Saifunnissa MeeraSahib daughter of Shri Meerasahib resident of Mymoon, TC 41/2598(1), 15-GHS Lane, Manacaud, P.O. Thiruvananthapuram - 695009 against pledging Gold ornaments.

(ii) Detail specification and weight of Gold ornaments including number of Bangles, Studs, Chain, Necklace and their individual weights pledged by my Ex-wife Mrs. Mymoona Saifunnissa MeeraSahib to Bank during 01st March 2012 to 30th April 2012 for availing gold loan from Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram.

(iii) Kindly provide the copy of application made by her for availing gold loan, appraisers/valuation report of gold pledged by her, gold pledge certificate/document issued by Union Bank of India at the time of receiving the gold from Mymoona towards pledge.

(iv) The date on which gold loan amount was disbursed to her and mode of disbursal. Whether loan was disbursed through cheque or through transfer to her account in Union Bank of India, Branch: Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

(v) The date on which said gold loan amount was repaid by her and the date on which pledged gold was released/returned to her or to her authorized representative.

(vi) Please provide copy of gold release certificate/ document issued by Bank while releasing the gold to Mymmona or her authorized representative after repayment of gold loan.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.05.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, M. G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking the aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 10.07.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 18.07.2017. The First Appellate disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 07.08.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 22.09.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.09.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the information is relating to her ex-wife Mrs. Mymoona Saifunnissa Meerasahib who had obtained a decree for divorce and has allegedly implicated him and his mother in a false recovery suit. The appellant has claimed that the CPIO and FAA have conveniently decided to suppress the facts by obstructing disclosure of information on the ground of third party information whereas the disclosure of the same would save some valuable time and resources of the judiciary during the hearings of the false cases filed against him.

4. The CPIO denied the information on 10.07.2017 and held that the information is relating to the third party, hence, the same could not be provided as per provisions of the RTI Act. The FAA while upholding the decision of the CPIO inter alia stated that the third party was issued a notice under section 11 of the RTI Act and on denial of the consent by the third party, information could not be disclosed to the appellant.

5.1. Shri E Haque was present on behalf of the appellant and the respondent Ms. Sreekala, Union Bank of India, Thiruvananthapuram, attended the hearing through Video Conferencing.

5.2. The appellant submitted that the matter relating to the information has already gone into litigation and the same is already in public domain. Therefore, the disclosure of the information would not cause any injury to any individual.

5.3. The respondent submitted that the information was relating to Mrs. Mymoona Saifunnissa MeeraSahib. The respondent sought consent from her as per the procedure laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act and consent was denied. Therefore, the information was not provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that reply given by the respondent after following due procedure prescribed under section 11 of RTI Act is reasonable. This is not the forum to settle the grievances and disputes of the appellant. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

                                                       (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा)
                                          Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु          )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission