Central Information Commission
Mr.Bharat Kishore Srivastava vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 7 October, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000510/SG/15072
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000510/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Bharat Kishore Srivastava
Advocate High Court
9B Strachey Road, Allahabad
Respondent (1) : Mr. Abdul Mujeed
PIO & Sr. Manager Punjab & Sindh Bank Zonal Office, Lucknow (2) : Mr. A. S. Jolly PIO & Chief Manager Punjab and Sind Bank Risk Management Department RTI Cell, H.O. 7th Floor, Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 05/06/2010 PIO Replied on : 29/06/2010 First Appeal filed on : 01/08/2010 Order of the FAA : 06/09/2010 Second Appeal received on : 23/12/2010 Page 1 of 3 S.n Information sought Reply of PIO o
1. The cases that have been assigned to Mr. The information under this para cant be provided Nimai Das, Advocate High Court for as it relates to personal information, the contesting at Allahabad High Court, DRAT disclosure of which has the relationship to any Allahabad and DRT Allahabad and DRT public activity or interest and would cause Lucknow. unwarranted harm to the privacy of individual concerned thus being exempted under Section 8.1(F) of RTI Act 2005 The details of all fees paid to Mr. Nimai for The information sought for is not provided under
2. the same and "all bills raised by him Section 8.1(g) of RTI Act 2005 including those recommended by Mr. C.P. Srivastava and details of his empanelment as a counsel for Punjab & Sind Bank".
Recommendation of Mr C.P. Srivastava, DRT The information sought for is not provided under
3. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank and his reason Section 8.1(j) of RTI Act 2005 and compulsion for doing so when it is known fact that Mr. Nimai Das is the Standing Counsel for the state of UP and as such cannot conduct cases for the bank and if he has not appeared for the banks cases then how come he has been allowed by Mr. C.P. Srivastava to raise forged and fictitious bills.
4. The appellant asked for permission for Permission to inspect records/documents in all "inspection and obtaining certified copies of cases maintained at DRT cell Allahabad can't be all original documents therein the record/ files given. all inclusive with no exceptions including file notings therein and from without and orders passed interim or final"
Grounds for the First Appeal
1. Because the Respondent no.3 has arbitrarily without assigning any reason rejected the RTI application treating the information sought as personal to protect and cover up the illegal and arbitrary and squandering of precious public money put in trust of a nationalized bank like the Punjab & Sind bank on an unscrupulous counselor such as Mr. Nimai Das who is a part and parcel of this entire criminal conspiracy.
2. Because the information sought is well within public domain and interest as the money spent on cases being conducted and contested by the bank is being charged to "Public Money" and not personal money, as the respondent no.2 and 3 would like to treat it, which the people of the Union of India have entrusted to a Nationalized Bank owned by the state and thus the information sought including the inspection cannot be denied.
3. Because the respondent No. 3 has violated and abrogated the solemn duties imposed upon him to ensure maximum disclosure of information under Public domain and interest as has been held in a plethora of judgements by the Hon'ble CIC, New Delhi.
4. Because none of the information sought including the inspection sought of all the queries raised by the appellant can even remotely be called personal being information of a Nationalised Bank of Public Domain and interest as has been held in a plethora of judgements by the Hon'ble CIC New Delhi.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA ordered the PIO to provide a list of cases that have been assigned to Mr. Nimai Das, advocate along with amount of fee paid in each and every case. In case no such record is maintained advocate wise the appellant be informed accordingly. Further, the appellant be provided details of empanelment of Mr. Nimai Das as a counsel for the Bank. The query with respect to reasons and compulsions for Page 2 of 3 assigning any case to a particular advocate is outside the purview of the RTI as defined under section 2(f) read with section 2(i) of the RTI Act.
Inspection of records cannot be permitted, since they have information about various customers, and this information is held be the Bank in a fiduciary capacity.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Respondents are a part to this entire criminal conspiracy of manufacturing and manipulating information and supplying false motivated information for the fear of exposure of corruption rife in the senior management of Punjab & Sind Bank which they cannot run the risk of being exposed more so in the light of the fact that they are already committing fraud upon the people of Republic of Union India by inviting investment in their IPO which is also based on concocted and false facts.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kishore Srivastava on video conference from NIC-Allahabad Studio; Respondent(1): Mr. Abdul Mujeed, PIO & Sr. Manager on video conference from NIC-Lucknow Studio; Respondent (2): Mr. Lekh Raj Chugh, Sr. Manager on behalf of Mr. A. S. Jolly PIO & Chief Manager New Delhi;
The Appellant states that the in an earlier RTI application he was informed that he was paid Rs.15100/- has been paid to Mr. Nimai Das and in the current RTI application the PIO has informed him that Rs.7900/- has been paid to Mr. Nimai Das. He therefore states that there is inconsistency in the information provided to him.
The Appellant had sought inspection of the files and the PIO hasd refused to give the inspection stating that this would disclose the information relating to the customers of the Bank, which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity. The Appellant states that he is only wanted access to the information related to the Bills of Mr. Nimai Das, Banks Transactions with Mr. Nimai Das with respect to the Cases and payments made to him. He states that he is not interested in getting the details of the Bank's customers about whom the cases have been handed over to Mr. Nimai Das and records related to empanelment of Mr. Nimai Das. He would like to inspect these records on 02/12/2011 at Allahabad Zonal Office and on 05 December 2011 at Lucknow Zonal Office from 11.00AM onwards.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information explaining the inconsistency in the amount paid to Mr. Nimai Das to the Appellant before 30 October 2011.
The PIO is also directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records on the dates as mentioned above to the Appellant. The appellant will be given attested copies of records which he wants free of cost upto 100 pages.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 07 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GS) Page 3 of 3