On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ File No. CIC/SH/C/2015/ Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (18)/ (19) Date of hearing : 28th March 2016 Date of decision : 31 st March 2016 Name of the Appellant / Complainant : Shri Brij Mohan Sarin, Chunnu Fashions, M 4, Ground Floor, Green Park, New Delhi Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Central Public Information Officer, Indian Bank, Corporate Office : , Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai The Appellant / Complainant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person: 1. Shri Sudhanshu Munshi, Chief Manager. 2. Shri N. Anbarasan, Chief Manager. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal

2 File No. contains an appeal concerning the RTI application dated filed by the Appellant, seeking information on twelve points regarding the loan accounts of M/s Chunnu Fashions, as the karta of the HUF owning the above firm. The CPIO responded point wise on Not satisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the FAA on Vide his order dated , the FAA upheld the CPIO s reply. Aggrieved with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal, praying for direction to the bank to provide the information sought by him. He has further stated that he has suffered loss in crores of rupees because of non provision of the information by the bank and has appealed for adequate compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act. 2. Files No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ and CIC/SH/C/2015/ contain an appeal and a complaint in respect of the RTI application dated filed by the Appellant, seeking information on fourteen points regarding the loan accounts of M/s Chunnu Fashions, as the karta of the HUF owning the above firm. In this case also, the CPIO provided point wise reply on It appears that before this reply reached the Appellant / Complainant, he filed a complaint dated under the RTI Act (registered on File No. 462), stating that no response had been received from the CPIO

3 and praying for penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply dated of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on In his order dated , the FAA upheld the CPIO s reply. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an appeal dated to the CIC (registered on on File No. 2332), praying for direction to the bank to provide the complete information sought by him and adequate compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act. 3. The above appeals / complaint came up for consideration on The Appellant / Complainant stated that the queries contained in the RTI application dated (Files No and 462) were essentially the same as those in the application dated (File No. 2331). He, therefore, requested the Commission to focus on the appeal concerning his RTI application dated and stated that its disposal would also cover his appeal / complaint concerning the RTI application dated The Appellant / Complainant stated that in his reply dated to the RTI application dated , the CPIO denied the information in response to points No. 1, 8, 9 and 10 on the ground that the account of M/s Chunnu Fashions was assigned and transferred to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. in June 2014 and all the

4 documents including case files of OA and SA along with correspondence files were handed over to them. The CPIO stated that in view of the above, no information was available to provide to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that such accounts are assigned by the bank to an asset reconstruction company for a limited period only and, in case the asset reconstruction company is unable to recover the amount of loan, the account and related papers come back to the bank. He further submitted that even if the bank transferred the original records to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., it must have retained copies of the relevant records / shadow files from which the information could be provided to the Appellant. The Appellant also stated that even if the Indian Bank has assigned the rights pertaining to the assets in question to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., it has not transferred the criminal obligations arising out of the misconduct committed by the bank officials during the operations pertaining to the assets turned over to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Therefore, the bank and its officials cannot escape the obligation of maintaining the records pertaining to the said assets. The Appellant argued that the CPIO should provide the information in response to points No. 1, 8, 9 and 10, if necessary, by obtaining it from the asset reconstruction company. He also questioned the decision of the CPIO to deny the information on points No. 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI application on the ground that these

5 were opinionated queries and did not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act and the CPIO s reply to point No. 5 to the effect that the query contained therein was not applicable. The Appellant stated that the information concerning the guidelines of RBI, sought at point No. 2, was subsequently obtained by him from the RBI. However, if the Respondents have a copy of these guidelines on their records, they should also provide a photocopy of the same to him. The Appellant stated that M/s Chunnu Fashions were given an additional loan by the bank, which should have been available, as per the RBI guidelines, for the benefit of the firm. However, the amount of the additional loan was adjusted by the bank, contrary to the above guidelines, against the previous outstanding. He prayed for information concerning the file notings on movement of the RTI application, sought at point No The Respondents stated that the Appellant had a misconception regarding the assigning of the account in question to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. The transfer made by them is an absolute transfer and not for a limited period and all the documents concerning the account have been transferred to the above reconstruction company. They further submitted that Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. is not a public authority under the RTI Act and, therefore, the information cannot be obtained from them. With regard to the information sought at points No. 1, 8 and 9, the

6 Respondents stated that they would search through their records again and provide any information that may be available. Regarding point No. 10, seeking complete information, including file notings /correspondence, on the Indian Bank having deal with M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. in respect of M/s Chunnu Fashions, the Respondents stated that they were willing to provide a copy of the assignment agreement that is available with them. The Respondents reiterated the reply of the CPIO to points No. 2, 3, 4 and We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The Respondents have stated that the account of M/s Chunnu Fashions was assigned and transferred to Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. in June 2014 and the transfer is absolute and not for a limited period. In this context, we note that sub section (2) of Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act provides as follows: (2) If the bank or financial institution is a lender in relation to any financial assets acquired under sub section (1) by the securitisation company or the reconstruction company, such securitisation company or reconstruction company shall, on such acquisition, be deemed to be the lender and all the rights of such bank or financial institution shall vest in such company in relation to such financial assets.

7 The Appellant has not cited any law or regulation in support of his contention that the Respondents should provide the information to him, if necessary, by obtaining it from Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., who are not a public authority under the RTI Act. However, taking note of the submission made by the Respondents, we direct the CPIO to make a thorough search through the records of the bank and provide such information as becomes available to the Appellant, in response to points No. 1, 8 and 9 of the RTI application. With regard to point No. 10, we note that the Respondents agreed to provide a copy of the assignment agreement to the Appellant. The CPIO should do so. He should also provide copies of the internal correspondence of the bank (and not the correspondence between the bank and the asset reconstruction company) regarding assigning of the account to the reconstruction company. While providing this latter information to the Appellant, the CPIO may sever, under Section 10 of the RTI Act, the information, if any, in the nature of commercial confidence and exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, contained in the documents in question. As regards points No. 2, 3, 4 and 5, we note the following observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated in Central Board of Secondary Edu. & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [Civil Appeal No of 2011]: A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide advice or

8 opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The reference to opinion or advice in the definition of information in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act. Taking the above into account, the CPIO is required to provide such opinion or interpretation as is available on the records of the public authority. At points No. 2 and 3, the Appellant enquired whether it was true that as per the guidelines of RBI, any additional sanction of loan amounts cannot be adjusted against any previous bank debits of the account holder and whether it was true that the said guidelines require an account holder to utilise additional loan amounts for business purposes only. The CPIO has to respond to these queries on the basis of the records of the public authority. He should verify whether the said records contain a copy of the RBI guidelines mentioned above and any guidelines / instructions of the Respondent Bank concerning the same issue. If so, he should provide copies of the same to the Appellant, in response to points No. 2 and 3. At point No. 4, the Appellant enquired whether the Respondent Bank followed the above mentioned RBI guidelines in respect of additional loan amounts of Rs. 1 crore in the year 2009 and Rs. 2 crores in the year 2010, sanctioned to M/s Chunnu Fashions. At point No. 5, he sought complete information regarding the action taken against those at the bank

9 who did not follow the said guidelines. The CPIO should respond to the above queries on the basis of the information available on the records of the public authority. While providing the information, if any, in response to point No. 5, the CPIO should exclude the names of the officers, if any, proceeded against. The CPIO should also provide the information, including the file notings, if any, in response to point No. 12 of the RTI application. The CPIO should provide the information as per our above directives, free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. 7. As regards the Appellant s request for adequate compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, we note that while we have differed with the decision of the CPIO in the case of some points of the RTI application and given directions for provision of additional information, there is nothing on record to establish any deliberate denial of information by the CPIO. Further, the Appellant has not established the loss or other detriment suffered by him as a result of the response of the Respondents to his two RTI applications. Therefore, we see no ground for award of compensation in this case under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act. 8. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals and one complaint are disposed of.

10 9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar