Central Information Commission
Mamta Ahluwalia vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 16 February, 2024
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/BOMAH/A/2022/146459
Mamta Ahluwalia ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Bank Of Maharashtra
Pune,
Bank Of Maharashtra ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 30.05.2022 FA : 10.08.2022 SA : 28.09.2022
CPIO : No Reply FAO : No Order Hearing : 13.02.2024
Date of Decision: 16.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.05.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Please refer the following:
a) My letters dated 18th February 2022 and 08th, September 2021 addressed to sh.
Suresh N Patel, Central Vigilance Commissioner, Satarkta Bhawan, New Delhi - 110023 (Copy enclosed as Appendix-A & B).
Page 1 of 6b) Central Vigilance Commissioner office reply dated 30.03.2022, wherein Central Vigilance Commissioner office forwarded those letters of mine dated 18th February, 2022 and 8th September, 2021 to chief Vigilance officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Head office, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra vide their reference no. 196059/2022/Vigilance-3 dated 30.03.2022 (copy enclosed as Appendix-C). The Central Vigilance Commissioner office directed your office to reply within one month, but till date i.e. after passing of almost 60 days, neither any reply nor any other communication has been received.
c) Also refer "Independent Forensic Auditor Report,, which was sought by Delhi Police ; being on panel of Delhi Police and expert on financial matters ; wherein it was stated that there seems to be a nexus among seller, Buyer, chartered Accountants and Concern Bank Officials of Bank of Maharashtra. It also stated that "Visit Report of Bank official" a well concocted story.
In view of para 1 above and no reply from the concerned officials & Chief Vigilance Officer of Bank of Maharashtra, I; being a affected party along with my husband; am forced to seek following information under RTI Act, 2005: -
(i) Please provide me copy of loan application in full along with quotation of Bell-
407 Helicopter which was submitted by Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd., whereby Karol Bagh Branch, Bank of Maharashtra made proposal for Term Loan of Rs. 10.00 Crores for the purchase of Bell-407 Helicopter.
(ii) Please provide me copy of loan proposal made by Karol Bagh Branch which forwarded to Zonal Office, Bank of Maharashtra for the approval of Term Loan of Rs. 10.00 crores for the purchase of Bell-407 Helicopter.
(iii) Please provide me copy of Form-32 of my husband Mr. Davinder Kumar Ahluwalia, wherein he has been shown as Director in Summit Aviation Private Limited / SAPL vide proposal dated 15.02.2010.
Page 2 of 6(iv) Please provide me certified copies of Asset and Liability (Networth Certificate of Mamta Ahluwalia and my husband Davinder Kumar Ahluwalia as on 31.03.2009, 31,03.2010 and 31.03.2012 which was submitted by Loan Borrower Summit Aviation Private Limited.
a) Please also confirm whether Bank of Maharashtra accept unsigned and unattested self-copies of Networth certificate, if yes, please provide me copy of Bank Circular.
(v) Please also state whether the proposal dated 15.02.2010 was for New Helicopter (Bell-407) or Pre-used Helicopter (Bell-407) along with cost mentioned in proposal form which was sent to Zonal office, Bank of Maharashtra.
..., etc./ other related information
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 10.08.2022. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.09.2022.
4. The appellant's husband Mr. Devinder Ahluwalia and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Anamika Ghosh, Sr. Manager Law, attended the hearing in person.
5. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that no response was received from the respondent till the date of hearing. He further submitted that the respondent had deliberately hidden the record and the same was produced to the police authority for investigation.
6. The respondent, while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought was not available in their office records as they handed over all the records to the M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt. When queried by the Commission regarding a reply to the RTI application, the respondent submitted that as per their records RTI application was not received by them. However, they had searched their records (manually and online), but, Page 3 of 6 could not find the same. A written submission of the respondent was taken on record which is reproduced as under:-
"1. This is in reference with notice issued to us vide file No. CIC/BOMAH/A/2022/146459 dated 24.01.2024 by the commission, wherein Ld. Commission has sought written submission with respect to second appeal filed by the appellant vide RTI dated 30.05.2022 with the respondent.
2. It has been alleged by the appellant that she has filed an RTI to us vide RTI dated 30.05.2022 and sought information's mentioned therein, it is submitted that we have thoroughly checked with our records maintained at Zonal Office, however, we are unable to find any record pertaining to RTI application filed by the appellant. It is also worthwhile to mention that our office got shifted from NBCC Tower, Bhikaji Cama Place to NBCC Tower, Kidwai Nagar, during the period mentioned in the application.
3. ln the absence of any application filed by applicant to us, we were not in a position to supply the requisite document/information to the appellant as demanded in the RTI application annexed with notice of this Ld. Commission.
4. It is nonetheless a matter of fact that the loan account of M/s Summit Aviation has already been classified as NPA and the said loan account has been sold to M/S Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., further, all the original documents pertaining to said loan account was also given to the M/S Phoenix ARC in pursuance to the sale of NPA loan account. Therefore, we are not having the possession of most of the documents as demanded by appellant in her RTI application.
5. lt is also submitted that appellant is asking for the third party information, which she is not entitled as rules as the same is proprietary and confidential information belonging to individual. Hence, same cannot be furnished to the appellant as per rules.
6. It is also submitted that the undersigned has also received summons from the Metropolitan Magistrate-o1, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case titled as Page 4 of 6 "Davinder Kumar Ahluwalia Vs M/s Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd." Bearing case No. CT. CASES/s16062/2016, PS: Karol Bagh, wherein, the husband of the appellant has also sought similar documents from us and undersigned shall be furnishing appropriate reply/supply of documents as per law.
7. It is to be submitted that on the complaint of appellant, an FIR No. 141118 dated 20.03.2018 U/S 420/468/471/34/IPC IPC PS: Karol Bagh, Delhi has also been registered, more so the undersigned has also received notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C. read with Section 175 IPC by concerned investigation officer, wherein, said investigation officer had also sought similar information/documents from the undersigned and he has also been informed that all the original documents qua the said NPA loan account had been given to the M/s Phoenix ARC in pursuance to the said sell.
8. It is apparent from the facts mentioned above that the information as sought by the appellant is part of judicial proceedings/investigation, wherein, undersigned is bound to maintain the confidentiality of the documents pertaining to said NPA loan account (if at all remains in the custody of undersigned as the most of the documents have already been handed over to M/s Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd) till the time of investigation/judicial proceedings. However, undersigned is bound to follow the instructions/order passed by the Ld. Commission.
Under the facts and circumstances mentioned in the written submission, it is respectfully submitted that original documents qua the information sought by the appellant is either not in the possession of undersigned or if at all some of the documents remain in undersigned's possession, same is subject to the criminal investigation in the above mentioned FIR and judicial proceedings mentioned above, hence, undersigned is not in a position to provide the requisite information/documents as sought by the appellant in her RTI application. It is replied accordingly."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that no reply has been given by the respondent Page 5 of 6 so far. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that as per their records RTI application was not received by them. However, they had searched their records (manually and online), but, could not find the same. Now that the respondent is in receipt of the RTI application, (forwarded along with the hearing notice of the Commission) the CPIO is directed to furnish a detailed reply to the appellant within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. With these observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 16.02.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank of Maharashtra,
DGM & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Head Office: Pune, Legal Department,
Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune, MH - 411005
2. The CPIO
Bank of Maharashtra,
Dy. Zonal Manager & Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
Zonal Office: Delhi, Ground Floor, Plate-B,
N.B.C.C. Office, Block No.-4 Kidwai Nagar East,
Delhi-110023
3. Mamta Ahluwalia
Page 6 of 6