A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

Information about ACP proposal - CIC is unhappy with the contradictory statements made by the Respondent which shows sheer disregard towards their own employees - CIC: Take relevant details from appellant so that requisite information should be provided

Appellant sought copies of noting w.r.t disciplinary proceedings pending against him - In a similar matter, the CIC order granting relief to the appellant has been stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: no relief can be ordered in the matter at this stage

Percentage of attendance of student enrolled in PH.D. as per UGC - PIO: Information related to the personal information of other students, therefore the same was denied to the Appellant under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Denial upheld

CIC: Complainant is arguing on his grievance regarding 3rd MACP and challenging the correctness of the information provided; PIO provided information in the spirit of RTI Act - CIC: Complainant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the Act

Alleging an unethical practices of taking money for passing PG clinical exam candidates, appellant sought to know the “number of times” a third party has been invited as an examiner - CIC: Being a third party service matter, information exempt u/s 8(1)(j)

A candidate sought to know the number of attempts made for the examinations conducted by UPSC - PIO: The number of attempts of the candidates is checked at the time of final stage of selection only; Information was not available in a complied form

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

RTI applicant can seek compensation if a loss or detriment is suffered due to delay

Delhi HC orders removal of news articles and social media posts against a businessman on X

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

Information regarding invoking the SARFAESI Act for realising the secured assets by Repco bank and the outcome of 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019 - CIC: The PIO to justify denial of information

5 Apr, 2021

Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together for hearing and disposal.

Information sought and background of the case:

(1) CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/150618

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.06.2018 seeking information on following 5 points:-

1. Please provide me information, whether Scale V officer/Joint General Manager of the Repco bank is in Par with the Chief Manager of the Repco Bank?

2. Please provide me information with details, regarding the Repco bank’s Authorized officer's authority to exercise powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the Repco bank to exercise the rights of a Repco bank?

3. Please provide me information, whether the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the Repco bank, or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the Repco bank has authorized its Authorized officer to exercise the rights of Repco bank under the Ordinance?

4. Please provide me a Copy of the above said Ordinance of the Repco bank mentioned in my query no: 3?

5. Please provide me with detailed information, regarding the procedure followed by the Repco bank for taking possession of the immovable property Under SARFAESI Act 2002, and Under THE SECURITY INTEREST ENFORCEMENT RULES, 2002, against its defaulting borrowers?

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 04.07.2018 stating as under: Point No. 1- Scale V officers/Joint General Managers of Repco Bank are not on par with Chief Managers of the Repco Bank. Point No. 2 to 5- Reply to these points is exempted under Section 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. 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. 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. of RTI ACT, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO on points 2 to 5, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.07.2018. The FAA vide order dated 06.08.2018observed that the information is exempted under section 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. 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. 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. of RTI Act, 2005 and upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Respondent reiterated the PIO reply stating that the information sought by the Appellant as queries No. 2 to 5 in the RTI Application, is exempt from disclosure under Sec. 8 (1)(j) of the Act. The Appellant refuted the Respondent’s contention claiming that no personal information has been sought by him in the aforesaid points viz. 2 to 5 of the RTI application.

Decision

Upon hearing the averments of both parties and perusal of records, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no merit in the Respondent’s arguments with respect to queries 2 to 5, since the information sought by the Appellant does not qualify as personal information, disclosure whereof could compromise the privacy of any individual, in terms of the Section 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. 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. 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. of the RTI Act. In the light of the above observation, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to provide the Appellant a revised point wise reply on queries 2 to 5 of the RTI application dated 04.06.2018 within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law

(2) CIC/RCFDB/A/2019/158402

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated06.10.2019 seeking information on following 5 points:-

1. Please provide me with information, regarding the number of Disputes, referred by the Repco Bank Limited to Arbitration in accordance with the Provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 in respect of REALISING THEIR SECURED ASSETS Between 01.01.2009 to 06.10.2019?

2. Please provide me with detailed Information, regarding the Repco Bank Limited not referred/referring the Disputes to Arbitration in accordance with the Provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 in respect of REALISING THEIR SECURED ASSETS Between 01.01.2009 to 06.10.2019?

3. Please provide me with detailed information Regarding;

a) Which all Provisions in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 are applicable,

b) Which all Provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 are not applicable, to the Repco Bank Limited for REALISING THEIR SECURED ASSETS?

4. Please provide me with detailed information Regarding, the Repco Bank Limited invoking the Provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for REALISING THEIR SECURED ASSETS, when the Report issued by the CPIO of Repco Bank dated 03.10.2019 states that, Section 3 (1) (a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to Repco Bank?

5. Please provide me with detailed information Regarding, the Repco Bank Limited, by Clearly Disobeying and Violating the Directions of law as defined under section 3 (1) (a) of the SARFAESI act 2002. Continue to invoke the Provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for Realising THEIR SECURED ASSETS when the RTI Report issued by the CPIO of Repco Bank dated 03.10.2019 states that, Section 3 (1) (a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to Repco Bank? Etc.

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 07.11.2019 stating as under: Point No. 1- 187 cases were referred for Arbitration between the period 2009-2019.

Point No. 2 - Bank has referred disputes for Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of MSCS Act, 2002 and has also initiated provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for realizing the secured assets between 01-01- 2009 to 6-10-2019.

Point No. 3&4- Information already provided vide our reply dated 23- 11-2017. However, we again inform that Repco Bank is a notified institution under the definition of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. By virtue of the enactment of Act, Repco Bank is empowered to invoke SARFAESI like any other Bank within the meaning of sec.2(c) of the SARFAESI Act.

Point No. 5 to 6- Bank is invoking provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for realizing secured Assets and Bank has not violated any provisions of law. Point No. 7 The information sought for is not available with Repco Bank.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2019. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. Respondent submitted that a point wise reply had already been provided to the Appellant, based on information available on record. On the other hand, the Appellant pointed out that replies furnished by the Respondent are incomplete and deficient.

Decision

After perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of both parties at some length, the Commission finds that though information has been disseminated by the Respondent, yet the Appellant is not satisfied with the replies provided by the Respondent, particularly on points 3 and 4. The responses furnished against queries 3 and 4 do not address the query, but appear rather generic. Hence, the Commission is of the considered opinion that a revised reply squarely addressing the queries 3 and 4 should be provided, specifically about the “Report issued by the CPIO of Repco Bank dated 03.10.2019 which states that, Section 3 (1) (a) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to Repco Bank.”. The respondent shall furnish the revised reply, on the point specified above, within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that non adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

(3) CIC/RCFDB/A/2019/158403

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.09.2019 seeking information on following 07 points:-

1. Please provide me with the information, regarding deliberate noncompliance and wilful disobedience committed by the CPIO /Joint General Manager Repco Bank Limited, 33, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017, in respect of the directions/orders given in paragraph No.7 in the Second Appeal No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/101995 dated 11.07.2019, in which the Honourable Central information Commission directed the CPIO of the Repco Bank to file an Affidavit with the Commission deposing that the information sought on point no. 2 is available in Public domain. A Copy of the Affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order?

2. Please provide me with a Copy of Affidavit as directed by the Honourable Central Information Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/101995 dated 11.07.2019?

3. Please Provide me with information, whether the CPIO of Repco Bank Submitted Explanation to the Showcause notice received from the Honourable Central Information Commission in Complaint No. CIC/RCFDB/C/2018/169043 dated 11.07.2019?

4. Please provide me with a Copy of Explanation submitted by the CPIO of Repco Bank to the Honourable Central Information Commission in respect of the Show cause notice received from the Honourable Central Information Commission in Complaint No. CIC/RCFDB/C/2018/169043 dated 11.07.2019? Etc.

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 29.10.2019 stating as under:

Point No. 1 & 2- As per the directions of the Honourable Central Information Commission vide his order in CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/101995 dated 11.07.2019, an affidavit was filed with the Commission and a copy also forwarded to you by RPAD on 03.10.2019.

Point No. 3- Yes the explanation is submitted to the show cause notice issued by the Honourable Central Information Commission in complaint No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/101995 dated 11.07.2019.

Point No. 4- The Honourable Central Information Commission has directed the CPIO to send the explanation to the Commission’s link only.

Point No. 5, 6 & 7- The Authorized Officer has not violated any provisions as mandated under section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act and hence no action is warranted.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2019. The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2019 observed that the CPIOhas provided the required information. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference wherein the Appellant denied receipt of any affidavit from the Respondent. He has strongly refuted the reply of the PIO and categorically stated that the replies provided by Respondent to the queries no. 5,6 and 7 are false and misleading. Respondent has not been able to adequately corroborate any of their averments, during the course of hearing.

Decision

Upon examination of the facts of the case, the Commission is not convinced with the response of the PIO and finds them deficient as such. Hence, the Respondent-PIO- Sh. Shankar is directed to provide a revised reply, specifically and categorically addressing the queries number 5 to 7, raised by the Appellant. It is also directed that a copy of the Affidavit dated 11.07.2019 filed by the Respondent pursuant to CIC order in the case no. CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/101995 shall also be sent once again by the Respondent, alongwith the revised reply (to queries 5 to 7), mentioned above, within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

(4) CIC/RCFDB/C/2020/104303

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2019seeking information on following 2 points:

1. Please provide me with information regarding

a) The Details of Authority/Department, to whom 187 Cases were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009- 2019?

b) The Details of Outcome/Result of 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009- 2019?

2. Please provide me with the Details of Arbitrator/s who adjudicated 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019?

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Complainant vide letter dated 14.01.2020 stating as under: Point No. 1 a) The Arbitration cases were referred to the Arbitrator of the Bank between the period 2009-2019. b) The details sought cannot be provided as the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point No. 2 - Mr. S. R. Sundaram, Arbitrator.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. The Complainant reiterated his contentions and stated that false and misleading response was provided by the CPIO hence penal action should be initiated against him. Respondent on the other hand stated that information as available on record had been provided by them.

Decision

The Commission after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusing the contents of the RTI Application observes that CPIO vide letter dated 14.01.2020 has replied to the RTI Application. Thus, no malafide is discernible on the part of the Respondent in response given to the Complainant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The instant Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

5) CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/109013

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.12.2019 seeking information on following 2 points:

1. Please provide me with information regarding

a) The Details of Authority/Department, to whom 187 Cases were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019?

b) The Details of Outcome/Result of 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019?

2. Please provide me with the Details of Arbitrator/s who adjudicated 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019?

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 14.01.2020 stating as under:

Point No. 1 a) The Arbitration cases were referred to the Arbitrator of the Bank between the period 2009-2019.

b) The details sought cannot be provided as the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Point No. 2 - Mr. S. R. Sundaram, Arbitrator.

Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO on point no. 1(b), the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.01.2020. The FAA vide order dated 15.02.2020 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and Respondent reiterated that the information sought by the Appellant in query No. 1 (b) is exempted under Sec. 8 (1)(j) of the Act. However, the Respondent is unable to substantiate his contention, when asked by the Commission, during the course of hearing. The Appellant, on the other hand, contended that the information sought does not fall within the ambit of personal information as defined under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence denial thereof was strongly refuted by the Appellant.

Decision

Upon hearing the averments of both parties and perusal of records, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to provide the Appellant a revised reply to the query 1 (b) of the RTI application, within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

(6) CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/105396

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2019 seeking copy of Repco Bank officers (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 2003. The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 27.12.2019 stating that information sought by you is exempted under section 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. 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. 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. of RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2019. The FAA vide order dated 24.01.2020observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. The Appellant pointed out that the information had been blatantly denied under Sec. 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 while the Respondent had failed to give any plausible explanation to support his argument and accepted the fact that he wrongly invoked the said section.

Decision

In view of the facts of the case, it is noted that information has been wrongly denied in this case and provisions of the RTI Act have been misinterpreted to deny the information. It is further noted that the PIO had clearly not applied himself while responding to the RTI application. In the given circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to the CPIO, Sh. Shankar, explaining why penal action under Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him, for causing deliberate obstruction in the dissemination of information, in violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The PIO/Noticee must submit his explanation/reply to the Show Cause Notice, reachable before the Commission atleast one week prior to the hearing of the Show Cause case

The Commission also directs the Respondent-Sh. Shankar to furnish a revised reply providing copy of Repco Bank officers (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 2003, within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

(7) CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/110731

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.12.2019 seeking information on following 03 points:-

1. Particulars and Details of the official/s with their Designation and Grade/Rank, who created Security interest on behalf of Repco Bank Limited, in Compliance to Section 23 of the SARFAESI Act 2002, between the years 2011 to till date?

2. Details/Addresses/Locations of the Security/Property, in which security interest is created by Repco Bank limited, in Compliance to Section 23 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, between the years 2011 to till date?

3. Copies of the Loan Sanction order/s Passed by the Managing Director or Board of the Repco Bank Limited, after which security interest was/is created by Repco Bank Limited, in Compliance to Section 23 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, between the years 2011 to till date?

The CPIO, REPCO Bank, Chennai furnished reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 24.01.2020 stating that information held by the bank under 'commercial confidence' and hence exempted under sec 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.01.2020. The FAA vide order dated 25.02.2020 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference. The Appellant has vehemently contended that denial of information in this case is wrongful and against the spirit of the RTI Act, per se. Respondent – AGM-Legal stated that details like name of the borrower, loan amount, property mortgaged etc. are uploaded on the website, however, information sought in the query number 3 is held in confidence by the Bank and cannot be disclosed in order to prevent invasion of privacy of the individuals.

Decision

In view of the facts of the case, it is noted that information has been wrongly denied in this case and provisions of the RTI Act have been misinterpreted to deny the information. In the given circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO, Sh. Shankar, to submit an explanation justifying denial of information, invoking incorrect provision of the RTI Act. The explanation from the PIO must reach the Commission by 28.02.2021, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law, on the basis of available records of the case.

The Commission also directs the Respondent-Sh. Shankar to furnish a revised reply to the queries number 1 and 2 within three weeks of receipt of this order and submit a compliance report before the Commission in this regard with necessary proof of service, positively by 15.03.2021. It is made clear that nonadherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law. Before concluding this decision, the Commission wishes to observe that the PIO, Repco Bank ought to have a better knowledge about the RTI Act, a lack of which leads to wrong application of the law, as seen in the cases above. The public authority is advised to designate senior officials with proper knowledge, for handling RTI matters effectively.

The appeals are thus disposed off with the above directions.

Y. K. Sinha

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Y Akbar Ahmed v. REPCO Bank in Second Appeals No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2018/150618 CIC/RCFDB/A/2019/158402 CIC/RCFDB/A/2019/158403 CIC/RCFDB/C/2020/104303 CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/109013 CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/105396 CIC/RCFDB/A/2020/110731, Date of Decision: 29.01.2021

Information regarding invoking the SARFAESI Act for realising the secured assets by Repco bank and the outcome of 187 Cases, which were referred for Arbitration by the Repco Bank Limited, between 2009-2019 - CIC: The PIO to justify denial of information

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.