के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग(cid:330),मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील सं(cid:421)ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/116850 Mohit Mehta … अपीलकता(cid:330)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Bank of Baroda Mumbai …(cid:366)ितवादीगण/Respondent Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. “As per bank of baroda rules/policy and under sarfasi Act 2002. Bank of baroda authorized officer prepare inventory or not of belonging, which are kept in mortgage property before to take possession, 2. As per bank of baroda rules/policy and under sarfasi Act 2002. Bank would have any kind of rights on auction sold property after issued sale certificate and possession handed over to highest bidder, 3. Does the Bank of baroda authorized officer after complete procedure and complete all formalities, issued sale certificate and handed over possession to highest bidder of auction sold property under Sarfaesi Act 2002 and, bank of baroda rules/policy, 4. As per bank of baroda rules/policy, and Sarfaesi Act 2002, does the Bank of baroda authorized officer release order before to take possession of mortgaged property, 5. As per bank of baroda rules/policy and sarfasi Act 2002 bank of baroda delivered notice or not to possession holder before take property possession,”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.03.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Reply to point no 1: Authorized officer follows the procedure given in SARFAESI Act 2002 and Security interest (enforcement) rules 2002.

As per guidelines if any movable asset not charged to the Bank is available in the premises, authorized officer has to take proper inventory.

Reply to point no 2: Information sought is in the nature of seeking query/advice/clarification/opinion from Public Information Officer which do not come under the purview of Sec. 2 (f) of RTI Act.

Reply to point no 3 & 4: Information sought is vague in nature and hence does not fall under the purview of section 2(1) of RTI Act.

However, Authorized officer follows the procedure given in SARFAESI Act 2002 and Security interest (enforcement) rules 2002.

Reply to point no 5: Authorized officer follows the procedure given in SARFAESI Act 2002 and Security interest (enforcement) rules 2002.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 06.03.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.05.2024.

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Sunil Kumar Sachan, DGM & CPIO along with Charuta Joshi, CM (Legal)

attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Appellant stated that he has not received the answers he was looking for through the instant RTI Application.

7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.

In this regard, the Appellant’s attention is drawn towar