Manohar Hariram Ahuja vs Bank Of India on 19 June, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Manohar Hariram Ahuja vs Bank Of India on 19 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.11.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 02.06.2021 and first appeal dated 05.08.2021:-

(i) Copy of the Appointment letter to Unisan / Yunns Menon as the lawyer for legal opinion.

(ii) Number of opinion given to the bank by Unisan / Yunns Menon on the titles of bank.

(iii) Method of scrutinize opinion given by the Yunns Menon / Unisan & Co. on acceptance in toto.

(iv) Method of selecting lawyer for opinion by the bank.

(v) Types of process notes made while :-

(a) Accepting the proposal.

Page 1 of 4

(b) Sanctioning of limits.

(c) Disbursement of limits.

(d) Temporary overdrafts exceeding limits.

(e) Settlement of dues under OTS

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 02.06.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.07.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.08.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 06.11.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.11.2021 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 30.07.2021 to the appellant and the same is reproduced as under:-

"We have considered your request in the light of the provisions of the RTI Act and inform you that the queries raised by you from serial No. (i) to (v), regarding the appointment of Mr. Yunus H Memon as lawyer for legal opinion and other related queries are pertaining to the Account Swift Service Lining, in which you are aware that CBI has filed an FIR bearing FIR No. RCBS22OO4SO001 dated 24.06.2004. As such providing reply to your queries from serial No. (i) to (v) would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Therefore, we are unable to provide any reply to the same under section 8(1) (h) of the Act."

The FAA did not pass any order.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kumar Jayant, Chief Manager (Law), Bank of India, Mumbai attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to an account of Swift Service Lining, in which the CBI had filed an FIR on 24.06.2004. They further submitted that providing the information would have impeded the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Therefore, the information was denied under section 8(1) (h) of the Act. They informed that charge sheet had been filed / submitted in this case.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had denied the information on the plea that disclosure of information would have impeded the process of investigation and they claimed exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the Act. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the investigation in the said matter was over and charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the respondent was not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised point-wise information to the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 19.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO: BANK OF INDIA NATIONAL BANKING GROUP (WEST) 2ND FLOOR, MUMBAI (MAIN) BUILDING, 70-80, M.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 Page 3 of 4 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANK OF INDIA NATIONAL BANKING GROUP (WEST) 2ND FLOOR, MUMBAI (MAIN) BUILDING, 70-80, M.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 SH. MANOHAR HARIRAM AHUJA Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission