Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Jaya Rukhaiyar vs Punjab National Bank on 30 April, 2026

                             केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                         बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                    Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                    नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/605403


Jaya Rukhaiyar                                     ......अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                 VERSUS
                                  बनाम


CPIO: Punjab National                             ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Bank

Date of Hearing                         :       29.04.2026

Date of Decision                        :       29.04.2026

Information Commissioner                :       Shri Surendra Singh Meena


Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:


RTI application                             :    03.09.2024

PIO replied on                              :    18.10.2024

First Appeal filed on                       :    15.10.2024

First Appeal Order on                       :    21.12.2024

2nd Appeal received on                      :   Nil


CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/605403                                            Page 1 of 5
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:

"Kindly provide the certified copies of all the relevant board resolution(s) of the Punjab National Bank since the 1st of April 2023 till date authorizing any/various officers of the bank to vote in the Special General Body Meetings of the Juhu Neptune Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Plot No. 16-H-3 (AB), Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400049, Maharashtra where the Oriental Bank of Commerce (which is now PNB) has owned the Apartment No 28/3 and is therefore, a member of the Juhu Neptune Cooperative Housing Society Ltd."

The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.10.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"Reason for Rejection: Section 8(1)(j)."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2024. The FAA vide order dated 21.12.2024 stated as under:-

"I have gone through the information sought by you vide RTI Application PNBNK/R/E/24/02387. The same application has been rejected under U/s 8(1) (j).

The information sought by you relates to personal information of the bank. The disclosure of the information has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

As such the application is being rejected."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The appellant was present in-person.

The respondent Mr. Hanif Mohammad Naddaf, AGM and CPIO, was present through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that he has sought certified copies of all the relevant board resolution(s) of the Punjab National Bank since 1st of April 2023 till date, authorizing any/various officers of the bank to vote in the Special General Body Meetings of the Juhu Neptune Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, where the Oriental Bank of Commerce (which is now PNB) has owned the Apartment No 28/3 and is therefore, a member of the Juhu Neptune Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, but the same was denied by the respondent under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant further submitted that the PNB is the owner of the said flat where the building was under reconstruction. The appellant also stated that the Neptune Society has not adhered to the provisions of Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which mandates transparency and a fair tender process to protect the interests of all society members, including minority stakeholders. The appellant further submitted that the information sought is not a personal information as the meeting was not attended by Mr. Nadim Ahmed in a personal capacity, rather in official capacity, so it is a duty of the bank to disclose this information to her.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the then CPIO had denied the information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, upon receipt of the hearing notice of the Commission, they have revised their reply vide their written submission dated 28.04.2026, wherein it was CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/605403 Page 3 of 5 informed that no person was authorized by the bank to represent and vote on behalf of PNB at the General Body Meeting of Juhu Neptune CHS.

A written submission dated 28.04.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-

"However, in addition it is submitted that No person has been authorized by Bank to represent and vote on behalf of PNB at General Body Meeting of Juhu Neptune CHS, held since April 2023."

The Commission observed that the reply provided by the respondent vide letter dated 18.10.2024 is not appropriate as information sought was not provided by the respondent, in the reply. The respondent during hearing submitted that he will provide the information sought to the appellant, in their revised reply.

Decision:

In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, within three weeks after receipt of this order. With this direction, the appeal is disposed.

Sd (Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 29.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/605403 Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

1. Jaya Rukhaiyar

2. The CPIO Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, 3rd Floor, Plot No C-29, PNB BOI Tower, BKC, Bandra East, Mumbai, 400051 CIC/PNBNK/A/2025/605403 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)