Copy of the title deed and search report of the property given as collateral for obtaining a bank loan by Shri Arvind Vyas was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) - Appellant: the property in question belonged to his ancestor - CIC: denial upheld
14 Apr, 2014Facts
According to the Appeal, the Appellant filed an RTI Application on 5.8.2011 seeking the photocopy of the title deed and search report of the property given as collateral for obtaining a loan by Shri Arvind Vyas (Royal Agency). The CPIO responded on18.08.2011, denying the information under Sections 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act and stated that the information related to a third party. The Appellant filed an Appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 16.9.2011 in which he stated, inter alia, that the title deed given by Shri Arvind Vyas was of a property that belonged to the Appellant’s ancestors and that Shri Arvind Vyas had no share in that property. The FAA passed his order on17.10.2011, taking into account the above submission of the Appellant. He directed the CPIO to consider the matter again in the light of this information and respond to the Appellant within 15 days. The CPIO wrote to the Appellant again on 8.11.2011 and stated that having examined the title deed and the search report, he had come to the conclusion that the information concerning this property was not related to the Appellant. The CPIO reiterated denial of information under Sections 8 (1) (e) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant approached the CIC in Second Appeal on 29.12.2011.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant, the Respondents and the Third Party. The Appellant stated that the property in question belonged to his ancestor Shri Mathura Das Chainroop and his father was the descendent of the above person. He alleged that Shri Arvind Vyas had no connection with this property and was not entitled to obtain a loan against it. The representative of the Respondents stated that the title deed of the property, against which loan had been given, was in the name of Shri Arvind Vyas and the search report of the Bank had also confirmed this fact. He added that the property was registered in the name of Shri Arvind Vyas in the office of the Sub Registrar. In response to our query, he stated that the loan against this property was obtained in 2006 and the search report of the Bank was also of the same year. Making his submissions as the Third Party, Shri Arvind Vyas stated that the property was in his name and in case the Appellant had any doubts about his title, he was at liberty to raise the matter in an appropriate court. He further stated that as the Third Party concerned, he was against disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant.
3. The Commission is not competent to address the issue of ownership of the property in question. We would, therefore, confine ourselves to examining whether the RTI Application has been responded to in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act. In this context, we note the submission of the Respondents that as per their record and the search conducted by them, the property is in the name of Shri Arvind Vyas. As the Third Party concerned, he has opposed disclosure of information. The Respondents have denied information u/s 8(1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has alleged that Shri Arvind Vyas has used the said property fraudulently to obtain a loan. However, he has made no submission to establish any larger public interest that would warrant disclosure of the information sought by him, in spite of this information being covered by Sections 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, we see no ground to interefere with the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under Sections 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Gwaldas Vyas v. Bank of Baroda in File No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000112/SH