Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 6 April, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Pooja V Shah vs Bank Of India on 6 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.04.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 15.01.2020 and first appeal dated 13.11.2020:-

(i) Provide the date of filing application to Magistrate court for taking possession of our above 2 flats under police protection etc.

(ii) Provide the date when Magistrate court passed order allowing BOI to take possession of our above 2 flats in RNA ROYALE PARK.

(iii) Dates when BOI filed recovery suit in DRT court against RNA GROUP including our above 2 flats and the order passed by DRT COURT allowing BOI to take possession of our above 2 flats.

Page 1 of 6

(iv) Date when BOI received order from Honorable National Commission(NC) dtd 14.07.2017 as detailed in para 4 above and certified copy of the Inward Register showing the date of receiving of this order

(v) a) Provide information whether the fact that the above 2 flats were under the injunction order of the Honorable National Commission as per the above order of t4.7.20L7 as informed by the Honorable National Commission to the Bank, was informed to the DRT COURT AND MAGISTRATE COURT ? (b) lf it was informed, provide certified copy of the documents showing that BOI had approached the above 2 courts with clean hands informing the above courts about the injunction order on these 2 flats as per the order dtd 14.7.2017 received by the Bank. (c) lf the above information was suppressed from the above 2 courts, not informed to these courts, pl provide that information specifically. (d) lf the above information was suppressed from the above 2 courts, not informed to the above two courts and BOI has completely avoided to inform the above facts 2 the above

2 courts, provide the reason for such policy decision which has affected the rights of this housewife in the above 2 flats. This is mandatorily required u/s- 4(1) (c) & 4(1)(d) of the RTI ACT as reiterated by the Honorable Supreme court as detailed in para 16 below under Explanation to assist PlO.

(vi) Complete information about putting the above sought information on the website of the bank as required u/s- (4) (l) of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.01.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.10.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.11.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 23.12.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 05.04.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 6

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.04.2021 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 21.10.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"i) The application for taking possession of mortgaged flats was filed before CMM Mumbai in the year 2016.

ii) The CMM vide order dated 04.08.2016 allowed for taking the possession of secured assets.

iii) The Recovery Suit filed on 24.06.2016 before DRT-2, Mumbai against the borrower and guarantor for recovery of Banks' dues and there is no order passed by DRT for taking possession of secured assets.

iv) The order from NCDRC received by branch however the exact date can't be confirmed. As far as the inward register is concerned that the same was not maintain by the branch.

v) With respect to injunction order of Hon'ble NCDRC order dated 14.07.2017.

a) The CMM has passed order on 04.08.2016 and the Hon'ble NCDRC was subsequent to the order passed by the CMM. Hence same could not informed to the CMM.

b) Can't be provided as per above reason.

c) There is no question of suppressing the facts.

d) There is no such policy of suppressing facts.

vi) Please note that we are not uploading the information sought in RTI under reference on the website. However, the information which is required u/s-4(1) of the RTI act is being uploaded The FAA vide order dated 23.12.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:

Page 3 of 6

i) "You had again sought this information vide your RTI-38 and the exact date is provided to you ie.05.03.2016

ii) The information is provided.

iii) The information is provided.

iv) Replied suitably on the basis of available information.

v) a) Replied suitably on the basis of available information.

b) The CPIO has rightly shown inability for the reason provided.

c) We agree with the CPIO.

d) We agree with the CPIO.

       vi)    We agree with the CPIO."
Hearing on 01.12.2022

4.1. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prashant Kulkarni, Assistant General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim order dated 05.12.2022 4.2 The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 05.12.2022:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the applicant filed a letter before the Commission stating that she received appointment letter from Delhi State Legal Service Authority appointing Adv. Rashmi Maurya to represent the instant case. But, Adv. Rashmi Maurya neither appeared during the hearing nor filed any written submissions seeking exemption from personal appearance. In these circumstances, it is difficult to dispose of the instant matter; therefore, the Commission deems it fit to adjourn the present matter in the interest of justice. The registry of this bench is directed to issue fresh notice of hearing to both the parties concerned. The notice of hearing may also be served to the Counsel of applicant. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned."

Hearing on 21.03.2023 Page 4 of 6

5. The appellant's advocate Ms. Rashmi Maurya attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Sh. Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1 The advocate who represented the appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was evasive and incomplete.

5.2 Shri Anup Kumar Sharma, Asstt. General Manager & CPIO, while representing the bank inter alia submitted that he had joined the bank as a CPIO very recently and he was not aware of the facts of the case. The CPIO further informed that the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications seeking various information and he wanted to go through all the files of the appellant and therefore, he sought some time from the Commission so that proper information or reply could be given.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, noted that Shri Anup Kumar Sharma who represented the bank had informed that he had recently joined the bank as CPIO and he was not aware of the complete facts of the case. Therefore, he sought some time to go through compete files of appellant to enable him to present the case properly. In view of the principle of natural justice, the respondent is given a final opportunity to defend the case. Accordingly, the appeal is adjourned.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेश चं ा) ा Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 05.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 The FAA Bank OF India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 Adv. Rashmi Maurya Central Panel, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi - 110002 (For information) Ms Pooja V Shah Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission