Amol Kansal vs Bank Of Baroda on 6 June, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Amol Kansal vs Bank Of Baroda on 6 June, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.03.2020include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.01.2020and first appeal dated 12.02.2020:-

Regarding House M.C. No. 21755, Near Pash Clinic, Power House Road, Bathinda. When above said property was equitable mortgaged with bank till date.

(i) Furnish copy of sale deed number 1793 dated 24.06.1975 pertaining to above said property which was deposited by owner Smt. Seo Wanti with the bank.

(ii) Supply copies of:-

a) Legal opinion Page 1 of 5

b) Non-encumbrances certificates.

c) Valuation report with site plan.

d) Copies of House Tax Assessment Register, Affidavit of owner with legal opinion.

e) Sanctioned site plan of house.

f) Sanction letter of site plan &

g) All other documents attached with above said legal opinion.

h) Valuation report and site plan got prepared for SARFAIESI proceedings for about two times.

(iii) Copy of recital register of bank regarding the above said equitable mortgage of deposit of sale deed number 1793 dated 24.06.75 and also of confirmation of mortgage letter sent by mortgagor to bank through regd. Post at the time of creating mortgage.

(iv) Copy of complete file of SARFAESI proceedings of sale of above said house from beginning to till date.

(v) Copy of proceedings, application given to D.C. Bathinda for permission and taking possession of above said house before auction by bank u/SARFAESI Act, with the help of police and copy of letter vide which permission was given by DC & police help was provided.

(vi) Copy of video prepared/ taken on the date of taking possession by bank with the police help of above said property and of date (24.12.2019) when possession was partly delivered to applicant and also of the date 03.01.2020 when the goods lying in house were removed/taken by the bank.

(vii) Copy of proceedings and records of Bank officials regarding taking of physical possession of above said house.

Page 2 of 5

(viii) Provide copy of complete file of financial assistance given by bank of M/s Mohan Traders (Lucky Bansal), Bathinda, with all documents of guarantors.

(ix) Copy of all notices served upon the bank u/SARFAESI Act in this case.

(x) Copy of statement of account of (M/s Mohan Traders (Lucky Bansal), Bathinda from 1/2016 to till date?

(xi) Copy of all objections ever filed by any person/s against the SARFAESI proceedings and auction of this property till date.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.01.2020under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Ludhiana, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO did not reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 12.02.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.02.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 04.03.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.03.2020inter 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 did not reply to appellant. The FAA vide order dated 26.02.2020 observed that they enquired with the concerned CPIO and he replied that they had not received the application at their end. The FAA forwarded the RTI application to the concerned officer i.e. Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ludhiana, to dispose of the RTI application.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Rajneesh Kumar, Manager(Legal), Bank of Baroda, Ludhiana, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 5

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided the copy of sale deed already. However, the remaining information being third party information, was not parted with the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that no reply/information has been given by the respondent so far. The oral submissions made by the respondent that they had already replied to the appellant, were not corroborated with any documentary evidence. In view of the above, Shri Bipin Kumar, present CPIO and the then CPIO (as on 26.02.2020), are show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the requisite information to the appellant. The present CPIO is given the responsibility to serve a copy of this order upon the then CPIO and secure his written explanations as well as his attendance on the next date of hearing. All written submissions may be uploaded on the Commission's web portal within 21 days. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed that suitable revised reply/information be made available to the appellant and a copy of the same be uploaded on the Commission's web portal.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.06.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

Regional Manager Bank Of Baroda Regional Office 3rd floor Sandhu Towers II, Gurdev Nagar Ludhiana-141001 The First Appellate Authority General Manager Bank Of Baroda , Zonal Office SCO 185-187 Sector 9-C,Chandigarh--160009 Shri Amol Kansal, Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission