Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri.S P Goyal vs Indian Overseas Bank on 20 September, 2011

Central Information Commission
Shri.S P Goyal vs Indian Overseas Bank on 20 September, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                        Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000571/SG14694
                                                               Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/SG/000571

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                              : Mr. S. P. Goyal,
                                         103A Krishna Chambers,
                                         59, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020

Respondent                             : Mr. A. K. Mohanty, Chief Manager
                                         Mr. B. M. Warman PIO & DGM
                                         Indian Overseas Bank,
                                         Central Office: Post Box No. 3765,
                                         763, Anna Salai,
                                         Chennai 600 002

RTI application filed on               :       14/08/2010
PIO replied on                         :       23/09/2010
First Appeal filed on                  :       28/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order on     :       30/10/2010
Second Appeal received on              :       30/12/2010

       INFORMATION SOUGHT                                          REPLY OF PIO
   1. a) Please allow me to inspect all files relevant to The Appellant is permitted to inspect the
       operation of Locker and complaint of my mother to uninspected records at the Ludhiana Main Branch.
                                                         You have already inspected those files on 25/08/10
       Police as well as to the order of the High Court of
       Punjab and Haryana at your branch Fountain Chowk, and 26/08/10 and collected voluminous records of it.
       Civil Lines, Ludhiana as well as total number of  The Appellant's practice of filing innumerable
       pages and note sheets in each file.               petitions after having inspected the records already
   b) Please allow me inspection of files regarding      is against the spirit of the said order and would
   Cr.M.No.54206       and     all    files  relevant    disproportionately divert resources of the authority.
                                                          to
   Crl.Misc.No.31877-M of 2004 and copy of High Court    Also there is no merit in seeking information on
   Order and copy of complaint of y mother to the Police.same issues after having inspected all the available
                                                         records.
   2. Kindly inform me about the date and time of As above.
      inspection of files to be undertaken by me.
   3. Inspection of files of Zonal and Regional office As above.
      having correspondence with New Marne Lines
      Branch, Mumbai & with your Head office relating to
      Monika India, Sanjeev Woolen Mills & Chirag
      Exports & Imports.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO did not provide information in time and it was not as per the format mentioned in the
application.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
All requested details have been supplied by the CPIO to the Appellant. However the Appellant is not
entitled to inspection of files deal with Locker case of Hittowani as the issues are not related to him
and are disputed as criminal case and pending for disposal before the judicial forum. The petition
extracts exemption under Sec 18(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
 Ground of the Second Appeal:
Denial of information as inspection of files were denied because 8 Bank managers are on bail in view
of misappropriation of jewellery from locker.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. S. P. Goyal on telephone conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Mohanty, Chief Manager on behalf of Mr. B. M. Warman PIO & DGM on
video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;

The respondent states that the Appellant is seeking to inspect the locker records of a Locker
Account in the name of the Appellant’s mother and Brother. The respondent states that the mother has
expired. The respondent states that they hold the record and information relating to their bank
customer in a fiduciary relationship and hence believe that the information is exempt under Section
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

The Appellant claims that he is a legal heir of Late Mrs. Seeta Rani. If the Appellant has any document
recognizing that he is a legal heir of Late Mrs. Seeta Rani he will produce it before the PIO before
05 October 2011. If he produces such a document the PIO is directed to provide an inspection of
relevant records by the Appellant on 01 November 2011 from 10.30AM onwards at the concerned
Branch.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO will facilitate an inspection of the relevant records on
01 November 2011, if Appellant produces the proof of his being the legal heir of the
late Mrs. Seeta Rani.

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
20 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (DJ)