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 4, Cited by 4]

Central Information Commission

Bishwa Ranjan Parui vs Indian Overseas Bank on 8 July, 2019

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                     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/IOVBK/A/2017/609541 &
                                      CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/609540

Shri Bishwa Ranjan Parui                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                              VERSUS
                                               बनाम


CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank,
Anna Salai, Chennai.                                            ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 24.10.2017                   FA     : 07.12.2017            SA     : 23.12.2017

CPIO : 21.11.2017                  FAO : 16.12.2017               Hearing: 04.07.2019


                                               ORDER

(08.07.2019)

1. As the information sought by the appellant in both the files (CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/609540 and CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/609541) is identical, therefore, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the cases.

1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.12.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 24.10.2017 and first appeal dated 07.12.2017:

(i) Please provide the statement of account no. 42 since 2000 till date.
Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 24.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 21.11.2017. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 07.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 16.12.2017. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.12.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 23.12.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the respondents had denied the information with mala fide by saying that he was a third party. He stated that he was a partner of the said firm. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO/SPIO to furnish the information immediately under section 19(8)(a)(b) of the RTI Act, invoke power under section 19(8)(b) to direct the public authority to compensate for the detriment suffered by him.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.11.2017 denied the information stating that information sought was third party information and the bank kept this information under fiduciary capacity, hence the same could not be provided under clause (e) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 16.12.2017 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant's representative Mr. Probeer Parui and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Chief Manager and Mr. Nishant Gupta, Law Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant representative of the appellant submitted that the appellant was the second partner of the firm namely M/s Bishnu Rubbers Products and all bank accounts were to be jointly operated as per deed. He alleged that a current account Page 2 of 4 No. 42 was opened in the name of firm and the same was being operated in single name by other partner Shri Niranjan Parui who had done transaction and hoarded money by clearing joint cheques of M/s "Bishnu Rubber Products" in this single account of Indian Overseas Bank which is illegal and has been using it till date.

5.2. The respondent submitted that account number in question was not related to said partnership firm as per the records available with them. They further submitted that said account was of proprietorship firm which belong to third party. Hence the CPIO did not provide the information under clause (e) of sub section (1) 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 records, feels that due reply has been furnished by the respondent. There appears no public interest in disclosing the information to the appellant. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/ Date: 08.07.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES:

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFIER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.No. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600002 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.No. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600002.
BISHWA RANJAN PARUI, Page 4 of 4