O R D E R

(13.04.2021)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 02.03.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.11.2018 and first appeal dated 25.12.2018:-

(i) details the points/clauses of the terms & conditions breached by DNP Foods Ltd.

as pointed out by bank in its application dt. 15.05.2018 before the CMM Esplanade, Mumbai under Bank Securitization application No. 368/S A/18 in its para no.13 copy of application attached.

(ii) details of Repayment Installments not serviced/paid by M/s DNP Foods Ltd. as stated in its para no. 14 of the said application as aforementioned.

(iii) details with reference to the agreement under which the Borrower did not repay the amount of said loan as agreed between the (Borrower) and (Bank), PIN Pointing the actual clause of the terms and conditions in the agreement, defaulted by the borrower as stated in para no.15 of the said application as aforementioned.

(iv) details of the calculation undertaken for arriving the 61 days period calculation along with bifurcation (if any) adduced to it as pointed out in para no.17 of the said application as aforementioned.

(v) details the use of muscle power as accused by the respondents mentioned in para no.18 of the said application as aforementioned.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.11.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.12.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 25.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated

02.03.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 02.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the information was illegally denied to him and the exemption claimed by the respondent was unjustified. 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 denied the information under provisions of section

8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Prafulla Soman, Deputy Zonal Manager, Mumbai City Zone, Bank of Maharashtra, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding packing credit of M/s DNP Foods Ltd. and he was the promoter/Director in the said company. The appellant further submitted that being one of the authorized signatories of the company’s account in the respondent bank, he was entitled to the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought the information in the capacity of an individual and not in the capacity of Director of M/s DNP Foods Ltd. Therefore, the appellant was treated as a third party by the CPIO and the information was not parted with him as per provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of RTI.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was perfunctory. The appellant was the Director and one of the three authorized signatories in the company’s account. That being so, the respondent was under an obligation to adopt the procedure under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act before refusing the information. Moreover, the appellant had also sought reasons in his RTI application. However, the respondent may not be under an obligation to provide reasons which were not squarely covered within the definition of “information”