Jaydeep Devji Palani vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jaydeep Devji Palani vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 02.03.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.11.2018 and first appeal dated 25.12.2018:-

(i) Drawing power calculated/estimated by the bank against each packing credit application submitted to Bank of Maharashtra from 1st January 2016th to 31st December 2017 as per the list of all Packing credits applications; furnish in the basis of calculation of Drawing power for each application.

(ii) details the disbursement made and/or not made against each application provided here Page 1 of 4

(iii) details the copies of the corresponding book/Ledger/record entries being made for each application as per the said above list for the disbursement made and/or not made any if no such records or entries were made then the reasons for the same.

(iv) details of time in hours, taken/required by the Bank/Bank officials to calculate/arrive at Drawing power based on a single stock statement submitted by banks client and the me within which the Bank conveys it to the borrower / Applicant.

(v) details along with the supporting documents/records /calculation/applications based on which bank arrived at the decision of concluding that DNP Foods Ltd.

does not have Drawing Power along with evidence and office notings supporting the said No Drawing Power decision dated 14th Dec 17

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.11.2018 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 22.12.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.12.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 02.03.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 02.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the information was illegally denied to him and the exemption claimed by the respondent was unjustified. 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.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.12.2018 denied the information under provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prafulla Soman, Deputy Zonal Manager, Mumbai City Zone, Bank of Maharashtra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding packing credit of M/s DNP Foods Ltd. and he was the promoter/Director in the said company. The appellant further submitted that being one of the authorized signatories of the company's account in the respondent bank, he was entitled to the information. The appellant further submitted that the respondent had taken 100 days to intimate him that it was not permissible to release the packing credit with his drawing power. The delay in intimation had caused him financial loss, hence, he had sought the requisite information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought the information in the capacity of an individual and not in the capacity of Director of M/s DNP Foods Ltd. Therefore, the appellant was treated as a third party by the CPIO and the information was not parted with him and the information was not parted with him as per provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of RTI.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. The appellant was the Director and one of the three authorized signatories in the company's account. That being so, the respondent was under an obligation to adopt the procedure under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act before refusing the information. Moreover, the appellant had also sought reasons in his RTI application. However, the respondent may not be under an obligation to provide reasons which were not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide suitable point-wise reply/information to the appellant within three weeks from Page 3 of 4 dated of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the appeal is 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: 13.04.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE, JANMANGAL, 45/47, MUMBAI SAMACHAR MARG, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 THE F.A.A, BANK OF MAHARASTHRA, MUMBAI ZONAL OFFICE, JANMANGAL, 45/47, MUMBAI SAMACHAR MARG, FORT, MUMBAI -400 001 JAYDEEP DEVJI PALANI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission