Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5160
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
SHRI SURESH CHANDRA, J
Avinash Kumar Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda – Respondent
Second Appeal No.CIC/PASBK/A/2018/166966
For the Appellant:
For the Respondents: Shri Davendra Kumar, Shri Vikas Kumar
Failure to disclose information in compliance with the RTI Act leads to accountability measures against responsible officials.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j), 18, 19, 20 - Non-disclosure of information - Appellant sought information regarding title deed of his property; CPIO denied it citing exemptions - The Commission found the denial unsatisfactory, directing the FAA to report on malfeasance and ensure compliance with RTI Act - Penalty consideration against CPIOs initiated for failing to provide information as required. (Paras 1-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a RTI application seeking information about his property; dissatisfactory responses led to a second appeal. The CPIO denied information based on exemptions under the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The commission indicated failures by the CPIO to comply with RTI requirements. The FAA, having not provided a report as ordered, is also under scrutiny.
Issues: Main issues included the sufficiency of reasons given by the CPIO for information denial and failure of the FAA to comply with directives.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court observed that proper compliance with RTI Act is paramount, emphasizing accountability for failures to disclose during proceedings.
Result: Directions for revisiting the RTI application and potential actions against officials involved in non-compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues related to rti application and initial denials. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant sought information on property title deed. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. cpio denied information without sufficient justification. (Para 4) |
| 4. hearing highlighted appellant's claim and respondent's mortgage justification. (Para 5) |
| 5. commission directed compliance due to neglect by officials. (Para 6) |
ORDER
(08.04.2021)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 05.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 30.05.2018 and first appeal dated 02.07.2018:-
(i) If the bank had the photocopy of the title deed of H. No.1317, on its record.
(ii) Provide the photocopy of the title deed.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 30.05.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.06.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 02.07.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.08.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 05.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.06.2018 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.
Hearing on 17.11.2020
4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Davendra Kumar, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda attended the hearing through video conference.
Interim order dated 08.12.2020
4.1. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 08.12.2020:
“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information relating to his own property i.e. House No. 1317, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh. However, the respondent denied the information without providing sufficient reasons. In view of the malfeasance as pointed out by the appellant in the matter, the First Appellate Authority is directed to inquire into the matter and submit a report within six weeks bringing out the facts of the case as well as malfeasance, if any, as alleged by the appellant within six weeks from date of receipt of this order. The Registry of this Bench is also directed to issue show cause notice to Shri Devinder Kumar, present CPIO as well as to Shri Sardar Satvender Singh, the then CPIO, to show cause as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not furnishing the information. All written explanations may be uploaded on the Commission’s web portal within 21 days.”
Hearing on 06.04.2021
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Devinder Kumar, CPIO & Chief Manager and Shri Vikas Kumar, Law Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that his house No. 1317, Sector -15-B, Chandigarh, in which he had been residing since 1983 was auctioned by the bank although it was never mortgaged before the respondent bank. He further submitted that despite show cause notice no information was provided by the respondent till date.
5.2. The respondent during the course of hearing inter alia submitted that the property in question was mortgaged by the previous owner from whom the appellant had purchased the property. Accordingly, the information sought was denied under section 8 (1) (d), (e
