Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Anil Kumar Pattanayak vs Punjab National Bank on 6 June, 2022

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                      के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UBKOI/A/2020/106340/PNBNK

Anil Kumar Pattanayak                                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                       VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO: Punjab National Bank
(Erstwhile United Bank of                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
India), East Medinipur,
West Bengal

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 17.07.2019                 FA    : 14.10.2019            SA     : 03.02.2020

CPIO : 24.07.2019                FAO : 12.12.2019              Hearing : 11.05.2022


                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                         ORDER

(03.06.2022)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 03.02.2020 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through the RTI application dated 17.07.2019 and first appeal dated 14.10.2019:-

Once UBI Danda Belboni Branch issued house building loan to one Mr. Gagan Behari Nanda S/o Late Himangshu Sekhar Nanda of vill-Nijmaitana, perhaps in the month of June - July during 2003. He sought the information in that regard:
(i) How much amount of loan was sanctioned with date & purpose?
(ii) What was the security against loan component?
Page 1 of 3
(iii) Whether the loan was repaid or remains outstanding, if yes then up to date amount of outstanding.
(iv) Was there any step to recover the loan by your bank, Danda Belboni branch?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 17.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United Bank of India, Purba Medinipur, W.B., seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.07.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 12.12.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed second appeal dated 03.02.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 03.02.2020 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 vide letter dated 24.07.2019 denied the information under Section 8 (j) of RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 12.12.2019 upheld the CPIO's reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Saumya Kanti Rai, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank of India), East Medinapur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained the loan account of third party i.e. Mr. Gagan Behari Nanda, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, it was exempted under section 8 (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letters dated 24.07.2019 and 12.12.2019. The information sought pertained to the 3rd party i.e. Mr. Gagan Behari Nanda who was entitled to preserve his Page 2 of 3 privacy. Moreover, the information sought was in the form of query which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Besides, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-


                                                                            सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                         सूचना आयु )
                                              Information Commissioner (सू
                                                               दनांक/Date: 03.06.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
CPIO : PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
(ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA)
CIRCLE OFFICE PURBA MEDINIPUR CO,
AT-PADUMBASAN, PO-TAMLUK,
DIST- PURBA MEDINIPUR,
WEST BENGAL-721636

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
(ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA)
CIRCLE OFFICE KOLKATA,
SOUTH UNITED TOWER,
9TH FLOOR 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI
KOLKATA - 700001

SHRI ANIL KUMAR PATTANAYAK




                                                                                 Page 3 of 3