ORDER

(06.07.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.04.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 09.12.2019 and first appeal dated 24.01.2020:-

 “Request for the documents executed, while taking possession of M/s. Venkatraman & Co and M/s. Venkatrayar Sago factory at Kakkaveri Village, Rasipuram Tk, Namakkal Dt, Tamil Nadu-637408 and compliance procedures followed by the lDBl Bank officials, under SARFAESI Act:

(i) Copy of the 'Possession notice in accordance with the Mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Ac,,. Rule 8(1) mandates of "Appendix IV, the Possession Notice" prepared and affixed to the conspicuous place. He requested for the above disclosed and mandated document the 'Possession notice in to be delivered to him under the RTI Act.

(ii) Copy of the proper publication, with dote and name of the publication, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Rule 8. Sub rule 2- the session notice in Appendix IV. as referred to in Sub-rule (7), published, as soon as Possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession. in two leading newspaper, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in our locality by the authorized officer

(iii) Copy of photo, video taken at the place of affixing 'Appendix IV' on taking possession under the SARFAEST Act. Rule 8 ('Appendix IV'. t request for the copy of photo or the Video taken at the place of Affixing the "Appendix IV", the photo/video with officials present to that location, as a document;

(iv) Copy of the methods executed in the incidence of taking possession at the properties on 21.06.2019 and taking possession Boundaries and Extent. in many of the item. in the schedule of properties;

(v) Documents prepared in accordance with the mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act. Sec: 73. Sub - section 4 be served to me through electronic mode of service. in addition to the documents copy delivering to him in post and the Electronic mode of documents is requested be sent to him in CD, packed, or to the mail ld”

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.12.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 09.01.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 24.01.2020. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 04.02.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 22.04.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 22.04.2020 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 replied vide letter dated 09.01.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“It is observed that the information sought by you is in respect of customer of IDBI Bank which is in the nature of commercial confidence and available to IDBI Bank in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the information sought by you is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.”

The FAA vide order dated 04.02.2020 upheld the decision taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Hemlata Prabhu, Dy. General Manager & CPIO, IDBI Bank Ltd, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was a partner in M/s. K. Venkatraman & Co and M/s. Venkatrayar Sago Factory and still had SB, Current and CC Accounts with the IDBI Bank, Salem Branch. He further stated that SARFAESI proceedings had been initiated against his company. However, the respondent had not intima