Appellant: somebody had impersonated him to obtain a loan in the name of M/s Vivek Fashion & sought documents concerning the opening of loan account - CIC: Appellant is a litigant before the DRT& is at liberty to obtain the documents through the Tribunal
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 10.2.2011 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points in connection with the loan a/c of M/s Vivek Fashion. The CPIO responded on 10.3.2011 and denied the information. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 15.3.2013. In his order dated 1.4.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 1.5.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant stated that somebody had impersonated him to obtain a loan in the name of M/s Vivek Fashion, signing in his name on the loan documents. He further claimed that someone had also fraudulently used the title deed of his property to pledge this property for the above loan account. Since the loan was not repaid, the bank took action to take possession of his property under the SARFAESI Act. The Appellant submitted that in his RTI application, he had sought the documents concerning the opening of loan account of M/s Vivek Fashion in the above context. The Respondents submitted that the loan in question and the claims of the Appellant, mentioned above, have been and are the subject of more than one legal proceedings. The matter is pending before the High Court and in a title suit concerning the property in a Civil Court. They further submitted that the matter is also before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) II, Kolkata. They stated that the DRT passed an order on 25.6.2014, directing the Respondents to produce the documents concerning the loan account in question. They further submitted that the Appellant can obtain these documents through the Tribunal. They also contended that the documents sought by the Appellant in his RTI application are the very documents that will be relied upon by the Debt Recovery Tribunal to arrive at its decision.
3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. The Respondents have brought to our notice the DRT order of 25.6.2014, directing them to produce the documents concerning the loan account in question. Therefore, we would refrain from interfering with the ongoing process in the DRT by issuing a directive for provision of documents to the Appellant. The Appellant is a party to the proceedings before the DRT and is at liberty to obtain the documents, desired by him, through the Tribunal.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Sri Sanat Roy Chowdhury v. UCO Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000937/SH