Appellant: an arrest warrant was issued by Court against him on a complaint filed by bank in the matter of recovery of loan; he was working as AAO in State Government & had not taken any loan - CIC: inspection of file allowed; compensation of Rs. 5000/-
Information regarding the details of account maintained by Flora Surgical Mills (FSM) in the bank was denied u/s 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. - Appellant: an arrest warrant was issued by the Court on account of complaint filed by the bank in the matter of defaulting loan (recovery claim) by the FSM; he was working as AAO in the State Government & had not taken any loan from the bank but is the affected party - CIC: trace the file and allow the appellant an opportunity for file inspection - CIC: compensation of Rs. 5000/- granted u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; for loss of prestige & untold mental harassment as appellant was considered responsible for nonpayment of a loan he had never taken and had to face arrest warrants
1. The appellant, Shri Nand Lal Vyas, submitted RTI application dated 23 December 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jodhpur; seeking information regarding the details of account maintained by Flora Surgical, Jodhpur in Sojti Gate Branch of the respondent bank, through a total of 8 points.
2. Vide reply dated 21 January 2013, CPIO denied the information u/ss. 8(1)(d), (e), & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 25 January 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that he had not been provided correct information by the CPIO concerned. No order had been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission requesting that he should be provided correct information on his RTI application.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Nand Lal Vyas, was present at the hearing and made submissions also from Jodhpur. The respondents, Shri N.N. Biswas, AGM/CPIO and Shri Sanjeev Mathur, Law Officer, made submissions also from Jodhpur.
5. The appellant submitted that an arrest warrant was issued by the Court on account of complaint filed by the public authority in the matter of defaulting loan (recovery claim) by the Flora Surgical Mills. The appellant had to pay the amount through a conditional cheque in the court. It was further submitted that he had no connection with the Flora Surgical Mills allegedly the loan deflating party and that he had not taken any loan on which he defaulted. The appellant further submitted that he was working as AAO in the State Government and had not taken any loan from the public authority. Hence, the appellant sought information regarding the record relating to the loan taken by Flora Surgical Mills as he is the affected party in the present case. The public authority did not deny.
6. The appellant finally submitted that he would also like to know the details of the conditional cheque deposited by him in the court and which has been credited with the SBBJ, Jodhpur.
7. The CPIO submitted that case record is prior to the year 1995 but since the final decree came out in November 2012, there is a possibility that the relevant records may be available. The CPIO sought some time to trace the information. He also sought the cheque number deposited by the appellant in the court and which has been credited with the SBBJ, Jodhpur.
8. The information sought by the appellant may be disclosed under the RTI Act and accordingly the CPIO is directed to trace the file and cheque deposited by the appellant in the court and allow the appellant an opportunity for file inspection and to provide copies as sought for to the RTI applicant within one week of the receipt of the order of the Commission, free of costs.
9. In the present matter, the appellant suffered a loss of prestige and untold mental harassment as he was considered responsible for nonpayment of a loan he had never taken and had to face arrest warrants. This indicates absolute negligence and lack of responsibility on the part of the public authority. Therefore, as per section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directs the public authority to compensate the appellant with an amount of Rs. 5000/.
Citation: Shri Nand Lal Vyas v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000651/MP