Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashok Kumar vs Bank Of India on 27 June, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000988/19366
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000988
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ashokkumar M. Pandya
16/A, Kisan Complex,
Maninagar Char Rasta,
Ahmedabad - 380 008
Respondent : Mr. Krishna Kumar
Public Information Officer & Dy. Zonal Manager Bank of India Ahmedabad Zone Bank of India Building, Bhadra, Ahmedabad - 380 001 RTI application filed on : 08/10/2011 PIO replied : 08/11/2011 First Appeal : 18/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 16/12/2011 (not enclosed) Second Appeal received on : 28/03/2012 Reference:
Bhola Ramjee Prasad had filed an bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the Hon. High Court of Gujarat for releasing him on regular bail in connection with the offence registered vide M. Case No. 1/2008 at Maninagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under sec. 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120--B of IPC; which was decided on 29.10.2010. Hon'ble Justice had noted following in his order:-
Mr Raju, on instructions from the bank, states that the bank would be withdrawing the proceedings under SARFAESI Act with respect to the all disputed shops and opening the seals of the shops without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the bank as well as the accused In connection with the complaint including the contention that the mortgage of the shops covered under the SARFAESI Act was valid and that the bank officers, who are alleged to have been involved, have no role to play and have not committed any offence, as alleged by the complainant.
S.No Queries Reply 1 Please inform the name and designation When the Officer has been arrested for the crime alleged
of officer/s who had given the above to have been committed while discharging his duties, the instruction to the accused advocate. bank has taken conscious decision to give him necessary legal support (to reimburse him the fees to be paid to the Advocate for defending the case), as such on the date of instructions to the advocate no sanction was taken but later on post-facto approval was given by the Competent Authority. As. the request for providing the copies of sanction falls under, exemptions Section 8(1)(d) & (e) i.e. commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship between employer and employee the same cannot be provided to you.Page 1 of 3
2 Whether any memo for withdrawing the The observation of the judge quoted by you in your proceedings under SARFAESI Act with application is the line of argument of the Senior Counsel respect to the 11 disputed shops and Mr. S.V. Raju in the bail application. As far as the opening the seals of the shops was placed withdrawing of the SARFAESI proceedings i.e. before the Competent Authority for desealing of the disputed shops are concerned Bank has Sanction/Approval? Provide copies and taken the conscious decision to withdraw the proceedings entire correspondence in this connection. and a note was approved by the Competent Authority. As such, the requested sanction/ approval Memo cannot be provided to you as it contains so many other information about the norms and parameters apart from the decision taken by the bank. Hence it falls under the exemptions u/s 8(1)(d) i.e. commercial confidence.
3 Whether any instruction/s sought from NO. Only telephonic consultations as and when required Head Office in this connection? Provide clarification. correspondence thereof.
4 Whether the Bank of India was party to NO. The bail application is between Mr. Bhola Ramjee the Criminal Misc. Application No. Prasad and State of Gujarat. 12572 of 2010 filed by Shri Shola Ramjee Prasad-accused?
5 Under whose influence advocate As your query is not proper, we are unable to reply.
appearing for accused Bhola Ramjee Prasad was given the above instruction?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Part of the sought information has been rejected.
Order of the FAA:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Part of the sought information has been rejected.
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 16/05/2012: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Ashokkumar M. Pandya;
Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Public Information Officer & Dy. Zonal Manager on video conference from NIC-Ahmedabad Studio;
"The PIO has given certain information but the following deficiencies have been found: 1- Query-1: Name and designation of the officer who had given the instruction to the advocate will be provided to the Appellant.
2- Query-2: The appellant specifically states that he wants a copy of the MEMO putup before the competent authority and the file notings relating to this. The Respondent states that some of the information on the MEMO may be relating to other matters and may be exempt. The PIO is directed to email the scanned copy to the Commission at [email protected] alongwith submissions of why any portion of this is exempt as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This will be emailed to the Commission before 03.00PM on 18 May 2012.
The order is reserved."
Decision announced on 27 June 2012:
The Commission received the scanned copy of MEMO alongwith the submissions from the PIO Mr. T.N. Krishnakumar through e-mail. In his submissions the PIO has stated that:
"We do understand that under the RTI, we are bound to disclose the information to the applicants. As per the spirit of RTI Act, the applicant is having a right to know the decision of the public authority on any Page 2 of 3 issue and reasons thereof for arriving to the decision applicant concern. If to that extent the information is provided to the RTI applicant, the purpose is served.
However on the other hand every correspondence and sanction (pertains to our customers or staff) are confidential and it is not supposed to disclose the public in general unless it is permitted by competent authority or the person concerned thereof. If the copies are provided to the RTI applicant, the Bank will not have any control on the RTI applicant from circulating the bank's confidential documents to the unscrupulous people. Then it is tantamount circulation of Bank's confidential documents to the public in general by way of providing copies to the RTI applicant. Therefore to obviate the unwanted situation to crop up, we were insisting to give inspection of the documents in our office rather providing copies to the RTI applicant. However, the issue has to be decided by the Honourable Chief Information Commissioner."
The Commission had directed the PIO to give reasons why any portion of the said MEMO is exempt as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The PIO has not given any reasons for refusing to provide the information by showing that it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."
In view of this, the Commission sees no merits in the submissions provided by the PIO for not furnishing the copy of said MEMO.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to furnish the following information to the Appellant before 16/07/2012, with a copy to the Commission.
Query-1: Name and designation of the officer who had given the instruction to the advocate.
Query-2: A copy of the MEMO putup before the competent authority and the file notings relating to this.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 27 June 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3