Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2008/000106 dated 28.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 22 October 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sardar Prem Singh,
C-5/67, East of Kailash,
New Delhi.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, 60/4, 3rd Floor,
FCI Building, Sanjay Place,
Agra - 282 002.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, AGM/CPIO
(ii) Shri B.S. Chauhan, Advocate
2. In this case, the Appellant had requested the CPIO for a number of
information including certified copies of certain documents concerning the
loan sanctioned to one M/s Atlas Farms of which the Appellant was the owner.
The CPIO replied on May 8, 2008, that is, beyond the stipulated period of 30
days, denying the information claiming that the matter was sub-judice before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and, therefore, information could not be
disclosed as per Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied
with this reply, the Appellant approached the first Appellate Authority. That
Authority disposed off the appeal in his order dated July 10, 2008 endorsing
the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has challenged this order in his second
appeal before us.
3. During the hearing, both the parties were present. The Respondent
argued that the information had been denied since the entire matter
concerning the recovery of loan against the Appellant had been pending before
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and, therefore, this could have been
obtained by the Appellant from that Tribunal since the Appellant himself was a
party in the case.
4. On the question of delay in providing the information, the Respondent
submitted that the original application for information had been addressed to
CIC/SM/A/2008/000106
a wrong CPIO and they received it only on transfer on April 8, 2008 and,
therefore, there was no delay on the part of the CPIO in replying to the
Appellant. Both the above arguments are not satisfactory. The denial of
information on the ground that the matter had been pending before the DRT is
not supported by any of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Merely, because a matter has been pending before a Court or Tribunal, it
cannot be denied to a citizen. Similarly, the argument that the application
had been received on transfer on April 8 and, therefore, there was no delay is
also not acceptable because it was the duty of the original recipient of the
application to forward it to the right CPIO within 5 working days.
5. As far as the information sought is concerned, irrespective of the fact
that the matter could be pending in the DRT, we direct the CPIO to provide to
the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order all the
information including the copies of the relevant documents sought by the
Appellant excluding those which they may have already provided to him. The
CPIO shall clearly mention in his communication to the Appellant a list of those
documents which has already been provided to the Appellant and, therefore,
not being provided this time around. For the benefit of the Appellant, the
CPIO shall forward a tabular statement showing that all the documents sought
by the Appellant in his application had already been provided to him.
However, if any of the documents or information is not available for any
reason, the CPIO shall clearly mention so in his reply.
6. In the matter of delay in replying to the Appellant, we do not intend to
impose any penalty this time around but would like to advise the CPIO to be
more careful in future in giving such replies.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2008/000106