Sidharhta Kumar Nanda vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 October, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Sidharhta Kumar Nanda vs Indian Overseas Bank on 5 October, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.03.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 17.10.2021 and first appeal dated 27.01.2022:-

(i) Deed of Partnership Document dated 02.02.2011 and deed of agreement dated 08.06.2011.

(As mentioned in page No 1&2 of Bank's reply to the authority)

(ii) Counter Affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by Sri Rakesh Rout.

(As mentioned in page No 2 of Bank's reply to the authority)

(iii) The appellant's letter dated 28.12.2015(As mentioned in your letter received by him, signed on dated 28.12.2015, posted on dated 31.12.2015 vide regd Ack No RO653822526) (As mentioned in page No 4 of Bank's reply to the authority) Page 1 of 5

(iv) Regd Postal Ack of letter dated 14.12.2015 (sent by your branch to the appellant, copy of the letter obtained from the counter affidavit filled before the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No 22508/15 dated 28.02.2016 (As mentioned in page No 4 of Bank's reply to the authority)

(v) Copy of Hon'ble Odisha High Court order WP ( C) 22508/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2015. Clearly mentioning that "The auction may take place as schedule but same shall not be finalised unless an order is passed by the DRT on his application".

(As mentioned in last paragraph of page No 4 of Bank's reply to the authority)

(vi) Copy of letter of Regional Office to the branch concern (IOB, Cuttak Main Branch) clearly mentioning to keep the deposited Rs 6,00,000/- in Sundry Creditor's Account.

(As mentioned in 1st paragraph of page No 7 of Bank's reply to the authority)

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 17.10.2021under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai.The CPIO vide letter dated 04.01.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.01.2022. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 01.03.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 14.03.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated14.03.2022 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.

Page 2 of 5

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Query No                                            Reply
       1        RTI applicant is party to the partnership deed dated 02.02.2011 and deed of
                agreement dated 08.06.2021 and the custodian.
       2        You have filed the writ petition. You have a copy of counter affidavit filed by
                Mr.Rakesh Rout.
       3        You are the custodian of your letter dated 28.12.2015.
       4        The record is not available with the branch.
       5        Order dated 20.11.2015 was passed in WP No 15890/215 and not in WP No

22508/2015. There was a typing error and it was wrongly mentioned WP No 22508/2015 instead of 15890/2015.

Copy of order dated 20.11.2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa 6 Information sought for is internal record (communication copy between Regional office and branch) of the bank. These correspondence contains information regarding safeguard of interest of bank. Hence, exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The FAA vide order dated 01.03.2022 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. R Mahalakshmi, CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. He informed that he was satisfied with the reply given by the respondent on point nos. (i), (ii) & (v) of the RTI application. He did not write a letter dated 28.12.2015 to the bank and he failed to understand as to how the bank had submitted before the Hon'ble High court that he had written the said letter to the bank. 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 04.01.2022. They further submitted that the letter dated 28.12.2015 referred by the appellant in his RTI application was incorrect. They informed that actual date of the letter was 23.012.2015 of the appellant which was brought into notice of the Hon'ble High Courts

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 point- wise reply to the appellant vide letter date 04.01.2022. Perusal of the reply revealed that Page 3 of 5 the respondent had duly replied to the appellant on all the points except point no. (iii) and

(vi) of the RTI application. Most of the information sought pertained to the matter for which the High Court may be the custodian and the appellant being the party to the petition, pleadings either initiated by him or his side or submitted on behalf of the respondent might have been served upon him. In that case for all those court documents respondent may not be considered as custodian.Against point no. (iii), the appellant had sought copy of the letter dated 28.12.2015 which was placed before the Hon'ble High Court. The appellant claimed that he had not written any letter dated 28.12.2015 to the bank. The respondent submitted that the appellant had referred the letter dated 28.12.2015 whereas the letter referred in the High Court was of dated 23.12.2015 of the appellant. They expressed their preparedness to provide copy of the latter dated 23.12.2015 to the appellant. With respect to point no. (vi), there is no reasons clearly brought to claim exemption. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information/reply against point no. (vi) of the RTI application along with copy of the letter dated 23.12.2015, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above 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: 05.10.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Indian overseas Bank, Law Department, Central Office P.B. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai Tamilnadu, -600002 First Appellate Authority Indian overseas Bank, Law Department, Central Office P.B. 763, Anna Salai, Chennai Tamilnadu-600002 Shri Sidharhta Kumar Nanda, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission