Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00634-SM dated Nil
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 12.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Beri
Respondents: Punjab National Bank
The Appellant is present in person along with his advocates.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present:
(i) Sh. Punit Kumar Singh, Law Officer
(ii) Sh. Sartaj Singh, Sr. Manager (Law)
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Punjab National Bank in
his letter dated 29.12.2007 seeking information in respect of outstanding loan
liability during the year 2007 against M/s Neelachal Estate (P) Ltd. The CPIO, in
his reply dated 28.01.2008, refused to part with any information on the ground
that the information sought was not specific. The Appellant filed his appeal
before the First Appellate Authority on 12.02.2008 which that authority decided
in his order dated 20.03.2008. While upholding the decision of the CPIO in
denying the information, the Appellate Authority further amplified the ground of
denial in his order. It is against this order of the Appellate Authority that the
Appellant has now approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, both the sides made several submissions. The
Appellant argued that the information sought by him was specific and limited to
the year 2007. The Respondents argued that the Appellant has not specified the
date with reference to which the information was being sought and, thus, it was
not specific. Besides, they also argued that such information could not be given to
him as it concerned a third party, namely, M/s Neelachal Estate (P) Ltd. On a
careful examination of the records before us and also the pleas made by the
Respondents, we find that the Respondents had not mentioned anywhere that the
Appellant was unconnected with the said account or had ceased to be a Director
of the said Company. That means, while denying the information, the Bank had
not taken the position that the Appellant was unconnected with M/s Neelachal
Estate (P) Ltd., and, hence, was not eligible for information in regard to a third
party. The Respondents submitted that they obtained the information regarding
the Appellant having ceased to be a Director of the above Company from one of
their Chartered Accountants. The Appellant on the other hand drew out notice to
the response of the State Bank of India(SBI) on an exactly similar application for
information made to them on the same date. The CPIO in the SBI had provided
the desired information in his reply and never alleged that the Appellant was
unconnected with the account of the said Company. The Respondents did not
have any clear explanation as to how the SBI provided the information to the
Appellant on an exactly similar application when they denied it first on the
ground of the application not being specific and now, at the second appeal stage,
on the ground that the Appellant was not connected and was seeking third party
information.
4. In view of the above, and especially on the ground that neither the CPIO
nor the Appellate Authority had ever questioned the relationship of the Appellant
to the account concerned in dealing with this request, we are constrained to agree
to the request of the Appellant and, therefore, we direct the Respondents to
provide the information sought within 10 working days from the receipt of this
order.
5. With the above observations, we dispose off this appeal. Copies of this
order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar