ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

The case of the petitioner is that he is a partner and authorized signatory of M/s V.C. Plaza. He is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 422.22 Square Yards in Old Sy.No.621/A2 corresponding to new Sy.No.621/A falling within C Block of Kurnool town, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5789/2009 dated 04.12.2009. With an intention to develop the said site into a multi-storied complex, the firm obtained loan under Loan Account No.31177647150, by creating equitable mortgage over the said land. Thereafter, due to loss in the business, the loan amount could not be cleared. As there was threat of life, petitioner left Kurnool town. The respondents declared the loan account as Non Performing Asset and taken recourse to the provisions of SARFAESI Act and had sold away semi finished constructions in favour of several third parties. Petitioner, in the capacity of managing partner of M/s V.C Plaza, made an application to the 2nd respondent requesting to furnish the following information:

1. Details of statement of loan account bearing A/c.31177647150 of SBI,TIF branch, Kurnool from the date of borrowing of loan to till date.

2. Sale deeds or sale certificates to whom the flats were sold.

3. Copy of all the title deeds.

4. Section 13(2) notice.

5. Section 8(1) possession notice and paper publication copies.

6. Sale notice.

The 2nd respondent rejected the application by order dated 03.12.2014, stating that Smt R.Venkata Ramana is not authorized managing partner of M/s V.C Plaza and therefore the information cannot be furnished. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated 09.01.2015/amended order dated 21.01.2015 rejected the appeal on the same reason. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent initially and the 1st respondent in appeal, have rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground that the information sought by Smt R. Venkataramana as Managing Partner M/s. V.C. Plaza is not authorized managing partner of M/s V.C. Plaza and therefore the information sought is not to be provided as it relates to third party personal information and held by the bank in fiduciary relationship and exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. By mistake it is written as Smt R. Venkataramana instead of R. Venkataramana. The ground shown by the respondents 1 & 2 for not furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner is only a technical ground. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.

Sri S. Satyannarayana Moorthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the application seeking information is not submitted by the authorized person of the firm with the seal of the firm and therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected to furnish the information sought for. He fairly submits that if a fresh application is submitted by the authorized person of the firm with the seal of the firm in the prescribed proforma, the same would be considered by the authorities.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application as authorized person of the firm in the prescribed proforma postulated under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, duly affixing the seal of the firm, to the 2nd respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of such application the 2nd respondent shall consider the same, as per law, and pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of four weeks thereafter and communicate t