Central Information Commission
Jaydeep Devji Palani vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 2022
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/BOMAH/A/2019/651720 &
CIC/BOMAH/A/2019/651718
Jaydeep Devji Palani ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Maharashtra,
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 09.05.2019 FA : 10.06.2019 SA : 21.09.2019
CPIO : 14.05.2019 FAO : 06.07.2019 Hearing : 25.02.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
ORDER
(16.03.2022)
1. The issues raised in both CIC/BOMAH/A/2019/651720 & CIC/BOMAH/A/2019/651718 are 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 21.09.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 09.05.2019 and first appeal dated 10.06.2019:-
(i) "Furnish him the certified copies of entire proceedings/application made by respondent/bank before the District Magistrate (Collectorate), having office Page 1 of 4 address:District Collector Office, Jilla Seva Sadan, Opp. Kotak Mahindra Bank, Dharampur Road, Valsad, Gujarat 396001 for taking physical possession U/s. 14 of SARFAESI Act 2002 with respect to DNP Foods Limited having factory address : 251/1-2, GIDC, Umbergaon 396171, Gujarat.
(ii) Provide all the documents, affidavit or any account statement and or any measurement, map description that have been adduced by respondent bank in the said application"
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.05.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 14.05.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 10.06.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 06.07.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 21.09.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.09.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the FAA's order was incorrect and that the FAA was himself accused of cheating, forgery, perjury, etc.; that appellant was director in the company DNP Foods Limited and was entitled to the information. 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 14.05.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought by you falls under exemption under section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as the information is held by us in fiduciary relationship, and also exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, Page 2 of 4 2005 being information pertaining to the account holder, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest."
The FAA vide order dated 06.07.2019 held that the CPIO's decision needed no interference, hence, the first appeal was rejected.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Deepak Shukla, Law Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the FAA was responsible for discharging duty of sanctioning packing credit/loan sanction and its disbursement along with incidental and consequential action including declaring NPA and invoking SARFAESI Act against DNP Foods Ltd. in which the appellant was a director. The appellant argued that SARAESI proceedings were in initiated against the company and that he being one of the directors of the company and representative of the company was directly affected by the action initiated by the bank. Therefore, the information was crucial for him.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information relating to the account of DNP Foods Limited which was a separate entity. Further, the appellant was not an authorized signatory in the company's account. Therefore, the information was not disclosed to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had denied the information under provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the appellant pleaded that he was a director as well as the authorized representative of the company seeking the information of the company's loan account. It may be noted that the appellant he had mentioned in the RTI applications that he was the director in the company without furnishing any document as proof that he had any nexus with the company. In view of the above, the appellant is required to produce document in support of the fact that he was authorized representative of the company. The respondent is directed that the information be made available to the appellant within three weeks from Page 3 of 4 the date of receipt of the relevant documents from the appellant. With these observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 16.03.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar ( उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
1. Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai Zone, Janmangal, 45-47, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400023 First Appellate Authority, Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai Zone, Janmangal, 45-47, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400023 JAYDEEP DEVJI PALANI Page 4 of 4