Central Information Commission
Shubha vs Syndicate Bank on 8 August, 2018
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/SYNDB/A/2017/131819 and
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/131365
Smt. Shubha ... अपीलकता /Appellant
... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Syndicate Bank, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
North Regional Office, Bangalore
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/complaint:
SA/Comp: 08.05.2017/
RTI : 27.02.2017 FA : 10.04.2017
02.05.2017
CPIO : 27.03.2017 FAO : 04.05.2017 Hearing : 30.07.2018
ORDER
1. Smt. Shubha filed an appeal and a complaint in case Nos. CIC/SYNDB/A/2017/131819 and CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/131365 in respect of an Page 1 of 6 RTI application dated 27.02.2017. Both the appeal and the complaint are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
2. The appellant/complainant filed two identical applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Bangalore and CPIO, Syndicate Bank, ARM Branch, Bangalore seeking information on five points, including, inter-alia (i) the names and designations of the staff of Syndicate Bank who were responsible for getting property bearing Municipal Khata No. 1783/KL64 adjacent to APMC Mandya East-West 370+230/2, North-South 140+210/2, measuring 52,500 sq.ft., Kallahally Extn, Madya City mortgaged to Syndicate Bank by Shri Sathyapriyanandan and another, and (ii) the name of the Advocate(s) as Legal Adviser(s) to the Syndicate Bank concerned with the mortgage of the property and the copy/copies of legal opinion(s) furnished by them to the bank.
3. The appellant/complainant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has been wrongly denied by the CPIO taking exemption under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act stating that it is third party information. The appellant/complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him and to impose a penalty on the CPIO for not providing the information.
4. The appellant/complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the RTI application has been returned by the CPIO with the remark "No such Branch in Avenue Road - Try Beat No. 19". The appellant/complainant stated that ARM Branch, Syndicate Bank after receiving his RTI application could have transferred it to the concerned CPIO. The appellant/complainant also stated Page 2 of 6 that this is a deliberate act of the ARM Branch to escape from providing the information sought.
Hearing:
5. Ms. Kokila Sudha, daughter of the appellant/complainant and the respondents Shri Shankar Kotaian, DGM, Syndicate Bank, North Regional Office, Bangalore attended the hearing through video conferencing.
6. The appellant's/complainant's representative submitted that the appellant/complainant is the co-owner of the property (Municipal Khata No. 1783/KL64 adjacent to APMC Mandya East-West 370+230/2, North-South 140+210/2 measuring 52,500 sq.ft. Kallahally Extn, Madya City) and hence, she has sought information of the property which has been mortgaged to the Syndicate Bank by one Shri Satyapriyanandan and another. However, the respondent had declined to furnish the information sought for by stating that it is a third-party information and such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant's/complainant's representative, therefore, requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide information sought for.
7. The respondent submitted that the appellant/complainant had not submitted any document to establish that she is a bonafide co-owner of the property in question. Further, the information sought pertains to a third party namely M/s CKT Stones International and others. Hence, the appellant/complainant was informed that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and
(j) of the RTI Act.
Page 3 of 6Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that in the matter of Central Bank of India vs. Union of India & Ors., [W. P. (C) No. 4190/2013- judgment dated 29.10.2013] Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"5. The provisions of Section 8 (1)(j) RTI Act on which reliance was placed by the CPIO would not apply in case the information is sought by the person to whom it pertains. Such an exemption can be claimed only when the 'personal information' relates to a third party. Since according to respondent No.2 he is one of the co-owners of the said property, in case any information with respect to mortgage of the said property with the bank is provided, that would not be a personal information related only to respondent No.3, she being only one of the co-owners and would equally a personal information of the other co-owners, including respondent No.2. Consequently providing such an information, to a co-owner of the property will not be the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act............"
As per the ratio of the above-cited judgment, the appellant/complainant, in case she is a co-owner of the property (i.e. Municipal Khata No. 1783/KL64 adjacent to APMC Mandya East-West 370+230/2, North-South 140+210/2, measuring 52,500 sq.ft., Kallahally Extn, Madya City), is entitled to receive information with respect to the said property mortgaged with the bank. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide the information sought for to the appellant/complainant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of documents establishing that the appellant/complainant is a co-owner of the property (i.e. Municipal Khata Page 4 of 6 No. 1783/KL64 adjacent to APMC Mandya East-West 370+230/2, North-South 140+210/2, measuring 52,500 sq.ft., Kallahally Extn, Madya City) under intimation to this Commission.
9. The Commission further observes that since an appropriate reply was furnished to the appellant/complainant, it cannot be said that the information sought was malafidely withheld by the respondent. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
10. With the above observations, both the appeal as well as the complaint are disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 06.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला( Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, North Regional Office, Law & Claims Section, Radha Vittala Mansion, 110, R.V. Road, V.V. Puram, Bangalore-560004.
2. Mrs. Shubha, Page 6 of 6