Ajaipal Singh Gill vs Punjab National Bank on 22 November, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ajaipal Singh Gill vs Punjab National Bank on 22 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 27.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.03.2019 and first appeal dated 30.04.2019 :-

A. SANCTION LETTER DTD. 22.11.2005 The bank states that the proposal in hand is for sanction of a term loan with a CC limit for setting up a project of Tissue culture of flori crops.

(a) Refer Para 1 of 7.A(ii) under subheading "comments on financial indicators"

Primary security and collateral securities are sufficient even at the distress level........

He wish to know, the following:

Page 1 of 6

(a) If that was so, why did the bank enter into an Agreement of Guarantee dtd. 01.12.2005 with the Directors of the Company and under what authority of law.

(b) Refer 8.A. under subheating "Primary Security"

It cover the hypothecation of Green House infrastructure. On a perusal of the expense ledger provided by the Bank, the Director's of M/s Pioneer Flori-Tech Pvt Ltd namely Sh. Gurtejinder Singh Sidhu and Sh. Gurdev Singh Sidhu spent close to Rs. 60 lacs (Rs. Sixty Lacs) for purchase of steel and alloy stuff from three different companies namely, M/s H.M. Steel , M/s Goyal Steel & M/s Jay Alloy Steel. Around Rs. 40 lacs was spent in 2008 and the rest Rs.20 lacs in Jan 2009.

He wish to know did the bank hypothecate this steel infrastructure. If yes, please furnish a copy of the same in respect of this steel infrastructure.

(c) Para 2 of 7.A(ii) under subheading "comments on financial indicators" reads as follows:

The project has been sent to the Department of Floriculture & Landscaping, PAU, Ludhiana, for vetting up of the project. They have found the project technically feasible.... .... The project is also eligible for back ended capital subsidy @20% of the total cost of the project. The company has already applied to the NHB for issue of LOI.

In this regard, He wish to know the following and seek copies of the documents:-

(i) A copy of the project report sent to Department of Floriculture & Landscaping, PAU, Ludhiana, for vetting.

(ii) Since the sanction letter mentions that the Department of Floriculture & Landscaping, PAU, has found the project Page 2 of 6 technically feasible, there must be a recommendation sent by them. A Copy of the same be finished.

(iii) The bank confirms that the company has applied to NHB, a copy of the application of the company of the NHB be finished.

(iv) The Senior Manager before appending his signatures to the sanction letter states in his own handwriting that he project is eligible for the back ended subsidy from NHB @20% and the borrower be advised to give all the bills and photographs for submitting to NHB, Gurgaon for lodging the subsidy. In this regard specify:-

a. Did the bank collect the bills and photographs from the company for submitting to NHB, Gurgaon for lodging the subsidy? b. If Yes, supply a copy of the same.

(d) Refer Para 8.B(a) under subheading "basis for evaluation of the IP's"

(i) On which date the Agriculture Officer and Branch Manager visited the site for inspection. Furnish a copy of their official tour to villages in Fatehpura Jatta and Abdullahpur in Bassi Pathana.

(ii) Supply a copy of this site inspection report submitted by the AO and Branch Manager.

B. AGREEMENT OF GUARANTEE OF DIRECTORS DTD 01.12.2005 In this regard, I wish to know the following:

a) Was the agreement of guarantee stamp paper provided by the bank?

b) In whose name (name of the party) the stamp paper of agreement of Guarantee is said to be purchased by the bank?

c) What is the name of the notary who has affixed the stamps in the name of the party? His name and other particulars be furnished.

C. SANCTION LETTER DTD 02.11.2007 Page 3 of 6 Refer Para 8.B(a) under subheading "basis for evaluation of the IP's"

(i) On which date the Agriculture Officer and Branch Manager visited the site for inspection. Furnish a copy of the official tour documents of the Agriculture officer and Branch Manager to Fatehgarh Saheb.

(ii) Supply a copy of this site inspection report submitted by the AO and Branch Manager.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 30.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 28.05.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 27.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 27.06.2019 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 18.04.2019 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

"Information sought for relates to third party and is of commercial confidence. Hence, it is exempted U/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act."

The FAA vide order dated 28.05.2019 agreed with the view of CPIO.

5. The appellant represented by Shri Narender Pal Singh Saggu attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent.

Page 4 of 6

5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that the appellant's name was fraudulently appeared as a director of M/s Pioneer Flori-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as "Company"). An FIR was registered with the Punjab Police, Ludhiana and the matter was under investigation. The appellant had also made a complaint to the CBI/CVO of the bank. He argued that being an aggrieved party, the appellant was entitled for the information sought and therefore requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the complete information.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observed that the respondent gave point-wise reply vide letter dated 13.02.2019. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and being affected party, he was entitled to get complete information. Since the respondent was not present in the hearing despite hearing notice sent to them, the reason for the same as well as not providing proper reply/information could not be ascertained. Hence, the then CPIO and the present CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Ludhiana, are Show Caused to explain as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then CPIO and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) must reach the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a revised reply/information to the RTI application within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 22.11.2021 Authenticated true copy आर. सीताराम मूत ) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर.

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Circle Office, Site No. 5, Ferozepur Road, Near Westend Mall, Ludhiana - 141 008 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, Circle Office, Site No. 5, Ferozepur Road, Near Westend Mall, Ludhiana - 141 008 AJAIPAL SINGH GILL Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission