Central Information Commission
Shri Mansukh Anandji Sethia & Shri Nitin ... vs Bank Of Baroda on 23 November, 2009
Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000164,226,227,228,229,230,232 & 233
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 23 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Mansukh Anandji Sethia Partner & Constituted Attorney of M/s Veena Sales Corporation, Station Road, Valsad, Gujarat - 396 001.
Shri Nitin Anandji Sethia 201, Riddish Apartment, Opp. Dream Land Cinema, Tithal Road, Valsad - 396 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Bulsar Region, Mahalaxmi Towers, Tithal Road, Bulsar - 396 001.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri Bohra,
(ii) Shri Rehman,
(iii) Shri Venugopal
2. Seven different appeals had been filed by Shri Mansukh A. Setia and one by Shri Nitin A. Setia against the orders of the same Appellate Authority. In all these cases, the information sought is more or less similar, and related to seven different firms of the Veena Group. These matters had come up before the Central Information Commission in the past in a very large number of second appeals which our predecessor had decided in her order dated March 13, 2008. She had directed that the Appellant should be allowed inspection of all the relevant records and after inspection, he should be provided with the copies of those records which he would indicate.
3. In the present batch of appeals, the Appellants have sought a wide variety of information in regard to the loans sanctioned to various firms of CIC/SM/A/2009/000164,226,227,228,229,230,232,233 the same Veena Group. The CPIO/Respondent submitted that all these information have already been provided to them as per the above direction of this Commission and that the Appellants have been seeking the same information once again.
4. We heard these cases today through videoconferencing. The Appellant representing himself and Shri Nitin A. Setia was present in the Valsad Studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were present in the Ahmedabad Studio. The Appellant submitted that the CPIO had not carried out the decision of our predecessor in the previous cases and had not allowed him to inspect all the relevant records. He further submitted that whatever information had already been provided to him was quite different from what he had sought now in the present cases. On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that the orders of our predecessor had been carried out in the right earnest and copies of all the documents and information as desired by the Appellants had already been provided to them at that time. They further submitted that the Bank had filed recovery suits against these firms in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and that the Appellants had been trying to seek all kinds of information from the Bank again and again in order to derail the proceedings pending before the DRT.
5. Prima facie, the subject matter of the previous and the present batches of appeals relates to the loans sanctioned by the Bank to seven firms of the Veena Group of which the Appellants are partners. In order to determine if the subject matter of the present appeals is indeed different from the previous ones as contended by the Appellants or otherwise as contended by the Respondent, we would like to have the specific items of information sought in all these cases listed in tabular format/statement. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to draw up a tabular statement showing the items of information sought, case-wise, for both the previous and the present batches of appeals, the information already provided, item-wise, and the list of completely new items of information, if any, sought in the present batch of eight cases. The Respondent agreed to provide this tabular statement within 15 working days from today whereafter a fresh date may CIC/SM/A/2009/000164,226,227,228,229,230,232,233 be fixed for hearing these cases again. We direct the CPIO to forward a copy of the above tabular statement to the Appellants also so that they can file their re-joinder, if any, to the Commission.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar CIC/SM/A/2009/000164,226,227,228,229,230,232,233