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 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Promilla Arora vs Bank Of Baroda on 12 March, 2019

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                            बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067


ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2017/163354


Promilla Arora                                           ... अपीलकता /Appellant



                                   VERSUS
                                   बनाम



CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office,
Kanpur-208102                                        ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11.05.2017            FA     : 29.06.2017         SA       : 04.09.2017

CPIO : 01.06.2017           FAO : 10.07.2017            Hearing : 27.02.2019


                                 ORDER

(11.03.2019)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.09.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 11.05.2017 and first appeal dated 29.06.2017:-

(i) When the A.T.M was installed on plot no. 111/439 Harsh Nagar, 80 Ft road, Kanpur. On that site the petrol pump of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) is operated in the name of Premier Automobile.
(ii) What amount is being paid by the bank to Bharat Petroleum Corporation limited (BPCL) for the said A.T.M installed at the site.
(iii) Has any lease deed or any other document been executed between the bank and BPCL concerning the said A.T.M. If so please provide copy of the lease deed/document.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.05.2017, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Kaushal Puri, Kanpur seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO on 01.06.2017 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 29.06.2017. The FAA vide order dated 10.07.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed second appeal dated 04.09.2017, before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.09.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information. The appellant submitted that the information sought about the ATM installed on her owned site i.e. Plot no. 111/439 Harsh Nagar, 80 Ft road, Kanpur and being a rightful owner, she has direct interest in the said property, hence requested the Commission to direct the CPIO and FAA to provide the complete information and impose penalty on them for concealing the information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 01.06.2017 denied the information stating that it relates to third party and has no relationship to any public interest, hence cannot be provided under sub section (1) (j) of section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The FAA vide order dated 10.07.2017 has upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant was represented by her son Mr. Vishal Arora in person and the respondent Mr. Brajesh Singh, CPIO/DGM (Regional Head), Bank of Baroda, Kanpur attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5. 1. The representative of the appellant submitted that the respondent has wrongly considered him as third party under clause (1) (j) of section 8 of the RTI Act, ignoring the fact that the appellant is the whole sole rightful owner in possession and has direct interest in the property. The representative of the appellant stated that the appellant has leased the said premise i.e. plot no. 111/439 Harsh Nagar, 80 Ft Road, Kanpur, to BPCL and thereafter the BPCL has subleased a portion of that premises to bank for installation of an ATM in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease. He also questioned the authenticity of the said lease agreement.

5.2. The respondent submitted that lease agreement was made between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and the bank. The information sought by the appellant relating to the said lease was a third party information, hence the same could not be given in terms of sub section (1) (j) of section 8 of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, finds that the reply given by the CPIO on point nos. (ii) and (iii) is proper. Further, the Commission directs the respondent to provide the information sought on point no. (i) of the RTI application referred to above within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

                                                                           सुरेश चं ा)
                                                         (Suresh Chandra) (सु       ा
                                            Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु )
                                                            दनांक/ Date 11.03.2019