Prem Sagar vs Bank Of India on 11 September, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Prem Sagar vs Bank Of India on 11 September, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.02.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 11.11.2021 and first appeal dated 28.12.2021:-

 Smt. Anita Sharma W/o Jyoti Sagar with Loan A/c xxxxx0006:

(i) Loan A/c no. ****0006 on the name of Smt Anita Sharma W/o JyotiSagar V. Badrola PO Tigaon, TehDayalPur (Ballabgarh), Mortgage Loan of Rs 6,00000/- (Rupees six lacks only) Sotai Branch से िलया है |

(ii) Cited above loan has been taken over against his house property in his village Badrola, PO Tigaon, The DayalPur (Ballabgarh). Bank advocate has given non-encumbrance, Legal Opinion Report / Search Report.

Property is his. So legal Report / Search Report attested copy should be given to him within 30days.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.11.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Page 1 of 4 Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Chandigarh. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.12.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.12.2021. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 13.01.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 28.02.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated28.02.2022 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 06.12.2021and the same is reproduced as under:-

As per information provide by branch applicant is no way connected with the account in respect of which information sought under RTI Act. As such you are a third party to the account and sought information/documents is held by the bank in commercial confidence and fiduciary capacity. As such the information sought by you falls under exemptions provided u/s 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (e) of the RTI act 2005. Hence we are not in a position to provide the same to you. The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2022 concurred with the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Ms C S Rajni, Chief Manager, Bank of India, Chandigarh, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that his parental property was mortgaged by Ms. Anita Sharma (W/ Mr. Jyoti Sagar) for availing loan of Rs. Six Lakhs (Loan A/c No. xxxx0006) from the respondent bank. He further argued that he was one of the legal heirs and had legitimate entitlement over the property which had been illegally mortgaged by Mr. Jyoti Sagar and Ms. Anita Sharma. He further stated that he had filed a suit against Mr. Jyoti Sagar and had impleaded the bank as a party in the case pending before court of law. Therefore, he had sought the Title Search Report for the property in village Badrola, PO Tigaon, The DayalPur (Ballabgarh).

Page 2 of 4

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information i.e. TIR over the property mortgaged by a third party i.e. Mrs. Anita Sharma. They argued that as per their records, Mrs. Anita Sharma was owner of the property and the information relating to the loan account of their customer was held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, they had claimed exemption under the provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 06.12.2021. Further, the appellant failed to establish his nexus and relationship with the account holder, both in his written as well as oral submissions. In absence of any documentary proof in his favour, the appellant's claim that he was the owner of the property mortgaged by Mrs. Anita Sharma was not sustainable. Besides, the appellant pleaded that he had filed a suit contesting the ownership of the property as mentioned in the RTI application and in that case the court of competent jurisdiction before which the suit lies had powers to call for the records, if necessary. The issue for consideration before the Commission was not to adjudicate upon the ownership or any other rights over property, if any and the same may be challenged before an appropriate forum. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 06.09.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of India 4th floor , SCO

-76-82, Star House, Sector 31, Chandigarh - 160030 First Appellate Authority Bank of India 4th floor SCO -76-82, Star House, Sector 31, Chandigarh -160030 Shri PremSagar Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission