Respondent: NPA borrower had filed a case against them in DRT and the same was sub-judice; they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant - CIC: It could not be a sole ground for denying disclosure of information under RTI Act
22 Mar, 2024
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.09.2021 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide the date on which newspaper advertisement was published with the terms and conditions of the auction.
(ii) Please provide the name of the successful bidder for plant and machinery.
(iii) Please provide the amount at which the sale of plant and was finalized with date. Please provide the copy of confirmation letter issued by the bank.
(iv) As per terms and conditions of the auction, how much time was given to the successful bidder to deposit the complete amount? Please mention the date till which he had to deposit the entire amount as per auction terms.
(v) Has the bidder deposited the entire sale amount? Please provide the details of the amount deposited by the Bidder with date. .…, etc./ other related information
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 06.01.2022 FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record. Subsequently, the CPIO replied to the RTI application vide their reply dated 20.12.2021.
3. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.09.2022.
4. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Abhinaya Gupta, Manager Law, attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 20.12.2021. He stated that the appellant was their NPA borrower, and he had filed a case against the respondent authority in DRT, Dehradun and the same was sub-judice. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that a response to the RTI application was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 20.12.2021. Further, denial of information on the plea that concerning matter is sub-judice before Hon’ble Court of Law or DRT could not be a sole ground for denying disclosure of information under the RTI Act, 2005. In this context the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. R.K. Jain in W.P. (C) 14120/ 2009 dated 23.09.2010 can be cited:
“5...........The matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”
Similarly, this Commission in its decision in Mr. Ashu v. CPIO/ Sr. Supdt of Posts, Department of Posts in CIC/BS/A/2015/001578/11769 dated 28.11.2016 had held as under:
“At the outset it is clarified that the RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirements of sub-judice matters. The only exemption for subjudice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden disclosure by a court or a tribunal and what may constitute contempt of court.”
In view of foregoing observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply along with a copy of readily available averred note sheet as sought for in the instant RTI Application, free of cost through speed/ registered post to the Appellant. The said direction should be complied by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Jasbir Singh Kharbanda v. Punjab National Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2022/145077; Date of Decision: 01.02.2024