Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5158
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Suresh Chandra, Commissioner
Avinash Kumar Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda – Respondent
Second Appeal No.CIC/PASBK/A/2018/166966
For the Appellant: Not specified
For the Respondent: Shri Davendra Kumar, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda; Shri Vikas Kumar, Law Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda
A public authority must provide requested information under the RTI Act unless valid reasons for denial are justly articulated, ensuring compliance and accountability.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8 (1)(d), 8 (1)(e), 8 (1)(j), 18, 19, and 20 - Second appeal concerning request for information regarding title deed of property - The CPIO denied information without valid reasons. The First Appellate Authority failed to comply with directions of the Commission to inquire into malfeasance as alleged - The Commission directs compliance with RTI provisions and outlines potential penalties for failure to provide requested information. (Paras 1, 3, 6)
(B) Non-compliance with RTI Act - The Commission emphasizes adherence to RTI provisions and the necessity of providing information requested by the appellant without unjustifiable denials, reflecting the accountability of public authorities under the Act. (Paras 4.1, 5.2, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking a photocopy of the title deed, which the bank refused to provide citing insufficient reasons. Subsequent appeals were also denied without satisfactory information being given.
Findings of Court:
The Commission noted the CPIO's lack of response and the First Appellate Authority’s failure to report on the case, raising accountability and compliance issues under the RTI Act.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the respondent's failure to provide information requested and their lack of compliance with the Commission's directions. The potential for imposing penalties under RTI Act sections was also addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the bank had a duty to respond to RTI requests promptly and with valid reasons. Furthermore, the lack of compliance from the CPIO and First Appellate Authority necessitated investigation into their actions, implying accountability under the RTI Act.
Result: The First Appellate Authority was show caused for non-compliance and must revisit the RTI application to provide the requested information.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's appeal for rti information regarding property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. responses from cpio and appeals to the commission. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. order of the commission regarding compliance and penalties. (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) & (j) of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records
