Mohan Murti Shandilya vs Vijaya Bank on 25 January, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mohan Murti Shandilya vs Vijaya Bank on 25 January, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated10.12.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.07.2018 and first appeal dated 27.08.2018:-

(i) As per the Special Committee set up by the respondent bank with a view to provide focused attention on monitoring of fraud involving amount of Rs. 1 crore and above, Committee of the board to monitor large value fraud had been constituted in terms of the guidelines of RBI.

Page 1 of 7

(ia) What was the maximum average annual rate of interest charged from borrowers by your Bank in all categories of loans & advances from 01.04.1990 till31.03.2018?

(ii) What was the total amount spent by the respondent's bank on litigations related to the small sum of Rs.48000/- approximately with Mr. Mohan Murti Shandilya, and Rs.60000/- (two FDs of Rs.3000/-) each of Gambro Nexim (India) Medical Ltd from 1990 till date at every level from Tis Hazari District court Supreme Court?

(iii) What was the total amount spent by respondent Bank on advocates & Senior Advocates as legal fee in the litigation related to the small sum of Rs.48000/-

approximately with Mr. Mohan Murti Shandilya and Rs. 60,000/- (two FDs of 30000/- each of Gambo Nexim (India) Medical Ltd. from 1990 till date from Tis Hazari District Court to Supreme Court?

(iv) What was the total amount spent by the respondent bank on litigations related to the sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- with Shri Mohan Murti Shandilya (SB Acc NRE 6523 at Defence Colony to Delhi), from 1990 till date at every level from District Courts to Delhi High Court?

(v) What was the total amount spent by the respondent bank on advocates and Senior Advocates as legal fee in the litigation related to the sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- with Mr. Mohan Murti Shandilya (SB Acc NRE 6523 at Defence Colony to Delhi), from 1990 till date at every level from District Courts to Delhi High Court?

(vi) What action the bank has taken in recovering the public money lost due wrong advice from advocates and/or from officials working in your bank's in-house legal department for giving wrong legal advice?

Page 2 of 7

(vii) What amounts your bank has recovered as unpaid dies from Asian wire ropes Ltd and Asian Ispat Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad from 1985 till date?

(viii) What action your bank has taken against erring officials of the respondent bank who acted negligently or otherwise with regard to the Bogus Bills purchased in the case of Asian Wire Ropes Ltd and Asian Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.

(ix) What action the respondent bank has taken against the officials who have caused disappearance of Specimen Signature Card of Mrs.Renu Murti, the appellant's wife, of her SB Account No.6524 at Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024?

(x) What action bank has taken against the officials who have caused forgery (three times) of the Specimen Signature Card of Mrs.Renu Murti, the appellant's wife, of her SB Account No.6524 at Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 by interpolation and using the said forged cards as genuine, though knowing that the same are false, as Specimen Signature Card of joint SB account No. 6523 of Mr. Mohan Murti Shandilya & Mrs.Renu Murti Shandilya in the case against your Bank bearing Case No. CS(SO) 1154 of 1993 in Delhi High Court?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 20.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Vijaya Bank, (now Bank of Baroda), Regional Office, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.08.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply , the appellant filed first appeal (With date 27.08.2018). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.10.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 10.12.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.12.2018 inter alia on the grounds that desired information was not provided the CPIO and the FAA till the date of Page 3 of 7 hearing. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.08.2018 gave point-wise reply and denied the information on point nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the RTI application stating that information sought on these points was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity hence, it was exempted under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. They also denied the information sought on point nos. 9 and 10 of the RTI application under section 8 (1) (d), (h) & (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 29.10.2018 gave a revised point-wise reply and stated that information sought on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application was not available in compiled form at one place and compilation of the same would divert the resources of the bank hence denied under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. They further, against point nos. 7 and 8 of the RTI application, claimed exemptions under section 8 (1) (d), (e), (j) & (h) of the RTI Act.

5. The appellant along with advocate, Ms. Ananya Bhattacharya and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Sandeep Kumar, Asstt. General Manager and Shri Ashutosh Choudhary, Sr. Manager (Law), Bank of Baroda (earlier Vijaya Bank), Delhi, along with Shri Vaibhav Dang, Advocate attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to appreciate the query raised against point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application and simply refused to give the information without giving any lawful and valid reason, with the sole mala fide intention not to provide the information which was beneficial to the society at large also. He further submitted that the respondent bank, being a nationalized Bank, was under

obligation to disclose every transaction involving public money including the information sought in the RTI application. Further, the information sought on point no. 6 of the RTI application i.e., action taken in recovering the public money lost due to wrong advice from advocate/ bank's in-house legal department. He contended that when a false litigation continued then again it was the public money gets wasted hence, the information sought may be given. Furthermore, he stated that the information sought on point no 8, could not be covered under Section 8 (l) (e), (h) &(J) of the RTI Act. Rather, Page 4 of 7 Bank was under legal and ethical obligation to disclose that when a fraud was being played what action Bank had taken against its erring official. Therefore, exemptions claimed would not sustain in the eyes of law. They also argued that action taken against the officials who had caused disappearance of specimen signature on card of Mrs. Renu Muthi (appellant's wife) and also caused forgery in his wife's card as sought on point nos. 9 and 10 not given till date.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that against point no. 1 the RTI application, the appellant had asked as to whether as per the Special Committee set up by the bank payment of Rs.2 Crore to a third party, on a bearer cheque tendered at the bank's counter by the bearer whose identity is not known, amounts to fraud. They contended that information sought by the appellant was vague and not specific to any particular case. They further submitted that information sought on point no. 2 of the RTI application was also vague as there was no readily available information regarding annual rate of interest that was charged from borrowers in all categories of loans & advances during the said period. The respondent informed that that the information sought on point nos. 3, 4 and 5 was regarding the total amount spent on legal fees on litigation between the appellant and Vijaya Bank during the last 30 years (i.e. from the year 1990 till date) at various levels from District Court to the Supreme Court.

The respondent argued that this information pertained to the third party, held by the bank in commercial confidence and disclosure of the same was not warranted in larger public interest or activity. Hence, it was denied under section 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, while responding to the query 6 of the RTI application, the respondent contended that Information sought was vague and ambiguous. They stated that no information was available regarding any loss due any wrong advice from the advocates and/or bank officials. Moreover, there was no record or court finding on this. They further stated that as per their records there was no complaint as specified by the appellant as mentioned on point nos. 9 and 10 of the RTI application, hence, there was no question of initiation of any action against the officials of the bank.

Page 5 of 7

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the replies given by the then CPIO's vide their letter dated 29.08.2018 and the FAA's order dated 29.10.2018 were incomplete and evasive. Perusal of the replies given by the respondent reveals that information sought on points nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 8 of the RTI application was denied by the respondent under section 7 (9) and section 8 (1) (d), (e), (j) & (h) of the RTI Act. However, proper justification for denial of information was not given by the respondent. Besides, information sought on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application pertained to litigation cost including the amount spent by Bank on advocates & Senior Advocates. It may not be out of place to mention that since the bank is a public authority for the purpose of RTI Act, they cannot take the plea of not revealing the advocate fee and litigation cost incurred by the bank as this may not be covered under the personal information or fiduciary relationship as claimed by the respondent. Further, the fee paid to the lawyer comes from the public funds, there is no ground not to disclose the information concerning the same. The statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act provides inter-alia, that the objective of the RTI Act is to provide to the citizens a "......regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority", In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide revised point-wise reply/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) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 25.01.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Page 6 of 7 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

BANK OF BARODA New Delhi Zonal Office, Bank of Baroda Building, 8th Floor, 16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 (EARLIER VIJAYA BANK) THE F.A.A, BANK OF BARODA New Delhi Zonal Office, Bank of Baroda Building, 8th Floor, 16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001 Mohan Murti Shandilya Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission