Copy of rule regarding transfer of the deceased's HUF account to the eldest male of the HUF - appellant claimed that the bank has invoked irrelevant laws on irrelevant considerations - CIC: inform the legal provision based on which decision taken
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 06.03.2012 seeking copy of rule regarding transfer of the deceased's HUF account in the name of the eldest male of the HUF.
2. The PIO responded on 10.04.2012. The appellant filed a first appeal on 11.05.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 28.06.2012. The appellant filed a second appeal on 29.09.2012 with the Commission.
3. I heard both the parties through video conferencing. The appellant was represented by his counsel.
4. The appellant's counsel referred to the RTI application of 6-3-2012 and repeated the issues on which the information was required, i.e., the provision of law relied upon by the bank in taking a decision in context of the matter stated in the RTI application. The appellant stated that the respondent has invoked irrelevant laws on irrelevant considerations.
5. The respondent stated that the background of this matter comes from a family dispute between the appellant and a close relative. The respondent stated that the appellant's father had three accounts in the bank, i.e., of a company, of HUF and a savings account. The respondent stated that action has been taken as per the law including consideration of a Will, the law of Karta in context of the HUF account and the "Either or Survivor" norms mandate.
6. The respondent stated that this matter has been going on for some time on account of family and personal dispute, which has also gone to the court. The respondent said that this matter is not a matter to be decided under the RTI Act, that the RTI route is not the solution.
7. The respondent stated that this is a matter where section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; applies where the respondent does not want to get involved in the family dispute and does not want to do anything which results in the providing of third party or confidential information.
8. The appellant stated that he wants to know the provisions of law which the bank has followed in taking a view in the particular matter.
9. The respondent stated that these issues have already been decided by the Commission as per decision nos. CIC/SM/A/2012/000568/01371, dated 1552013, CIC/VS/A/2012/000998/04365, dated 1382013 and CIC/VS/A/2012/001040/04366, dated 1382013.
10. The appellant said that he wants to know the legal provision which the bank has relied upon in reaching its decision on the matter described in the RTI application.
11. The respondent cited the legal provision used by the respondent in deciding upon the matter outline in the RTI application.
12. The respondent is directed to inform the appellant, within 30 days of this order, as to which legal provision has been the basis of the respondent's decision in the family dispute matter mentioned in the RTI application. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Arun Chhabria v. Union Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001502/04886