Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3964
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Ayush Varshney – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent
Complaint No. CIC/BKOIN/C/2024/122391
For the Appellant: Not mentioned
For the Respondent: Deepak Tripathi
The absence of response to an RTI application does not indicate mala fide if the responding authority demonstrates compliance with notice requirements.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - The SARFAESI Act, 2002 - The Appellant sought information regarding a possession notice under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, but the Respondent demonstrated procedural compliance by stating the notice was duly served to the registered address. The complaint lacked merit as there was no evidence of mala fide from the Respondent's side. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Service of Notice - The Respondent provided rationale for the initiation of SARFAESI action and the subsequent notice sent, asserting that the Appellant evaded service intentionally to delay recovery. There was no claim of non-communication could be established. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant filed a complaint after not receiving a reply to an RTI application regarding notices under the SARFAESI Act for a non-performing asset loan, stating grievances regarding service of the notice.
Findings of Court:
The Commission noted that the notice had been served as per the Act, and the Respondent provided required information following the hearing notification.
Issues: The main issue was the acknowledgment of service and compliance with RTI provisions regarding procedural response to the request.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision underlines that procedural requirements for notice service were met and no delay or malaise was established against the Respondent.
Result: The complaint is closed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for notice under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. response and service compliance of the notice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. closure of complaint based on procedural adherence. (Para 6) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 20.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Kindly provide the copy of notice issued under SARAFESI Act 13 (4).
(ii) Kindly also provide the copy of postal receipt of the above-mentioned notice sent to me.
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.01.2024. The FAA’s order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 08.07.2024.
4. The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Deepak Tripathi, Manager legal, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The respondent reiterated his written submission dated 20.08.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-
The Appellant is NPA Borrower of our Aligarh Branch bearing Account no. 77507721000**** and 7750301100****. His Account is NPA from 31.05.2019 with O/s. of Rs. 92,92,121.52 (Ninety-Two Lakh Ninety-Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty-One Rupees and Fifty Two Paisa) + interest + other charges. His Loan is secured by mortgage of immovable property. So, bank being the Secured creditor have initiated SARFAESI Action against the Appellant (NPA Borrower) as well as Guarantor of the loan account under The SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing 13(2) i.e. Demand Notice on 05.06.2019 and subsequently we have issued 13(4)- Possession notice on 22.01.2020, which was duly served, published and affixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant vide RTI Application dated 20.12.2023 has sought copy of notice issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act along with postal receipt of the Notices send to him. However, the Appellant (NPA Borrower) along with Guarantor has himself evaded the service of Notice which was send on their recorded address, with an intention to delay the lawful recovery action, which is evident from copy of Postal Receipt along with envelope annexed with submission.
Further, we wish to inform you that we have not received the RTI application and Appeal, hence, we were unable to respond to the applicant. However, on receipt of the hearing notice, we have furnished point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 20.08.2025.
Reply dated 20.08.2025 is also reproduced as below:-
We have gone through the contents of your RTI Application and found that you have sought Copy of notice send to you under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act along with postal receipt.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the instant RTI application was never received in the respondent’s office, however, upon receipt of the hearing notice of the Commission, the respondent furnished the available information to the complainant. It is not the case that the respondent has not given any reply to the Complainant and no mala fide could be attributed to the decision taken by them. Further, in the absence of the complainant or any additional objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent are taken on record. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.
