Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000211 dated 23-07-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 26 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Vishal Saini
1176, Shata Madan Gopal,
Maliwada, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 6
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Syndicate Bank,
Near Post Office, Hapur District,
Ghaziabad.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Amit Saini.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri R.C. Vermani, DGM,
(ii) Shri Dattatrey Bajpai, Manager (Law)
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated July 23, 2008,
requested the CPIO for a number of information including the photocopies
of records in respect of a loan sanctioned by the Bank in the past to one M/s
Maya Cold Storage. The CPIO, it seems, did not send any reply or
information to the Appellant within the stipulated period. Consequently, the
Appellant approached the Appellate Authority on August 27, 2008. The
Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated September 30,
2008 in which he held that part of the information could not be disclosed as
it was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) and (j) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act while he also directed that part of the information should be
provided by the CPIO. Following this order, it appeared the CPIO provided
some information to the Appellant. However, the Appellant was not
satisfied and decided to come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. During the hearing of the case, both the parties were present and
made their submissions. It is a fact that the Appellant was not a partner of
the unit which had borrowed money and, therefore, there was some merit
in the decision of the Appellate Authority that the details about the loan
account of the third-party customer could not be disclosed to him. The
Appellant submitted that he was the legal heir of one of the partners of the
borrower unit and that therefore had a claim to receive information from
CIC/SM/A/2009/000211
the Bank. It was reported by both the parties that several lawsuits had been
filed by both the sides in various law courts, a number of which have since
been decided. It appears for non-payment of the loan, the Bank had filed a
civil suit in the past in which the court had decreed in their favour and they
had got the decree enforced through the DRT. It is also reported that the
DRT ordered the auction of a certain residential property which the
Appellant claims to be his own and which was not mortgaged to the Bank for
the loan. He is seeking the information to understand how this residential
property was auctioned when it was not originally mortgaged.
4. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the Appellant is a legal heir of one
of the partners of the borrower unit. To that extent, some of the
information sought by him could be legitimately provided to him. In view of
this, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 15 working days
from the receipt of this order, the desired information against items 1, 3, 7
and 8 of his application dated July 23, 2008 along with the photocopies of
the relevant records.
5. We also direct the CPIO to explain in writing if he had any reasonable
cause for not replying to the Appellant or not providing the information
within the stipulated period of 30 days. If we do not receive his explanation
within 15 working days from the receipt of this order, we will proceed to
decide on the imposition of penalty as per the provisions of Section 20 of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act without giving him any further
opportunity of hearing. However, he is free to indicate if he would like to
have a personal hearing in this regard.
6. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
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/2009/000211