Dismissed

Jayakumar.P.S v. Chief Information Officer

Kerala HC1 Nov 2016WP(C)/21488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of an RTI application by State Bank of Travancore. It held that records regarding pending criminal claims fell outside the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act and the impugned orders were legal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the RTI refusal and appellate orders was dismissed.

Jayakumar.P.S Vs Chief Information Officer — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21488 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.S. JAYAKUMAR,

¶8

AISWARYA CASHEW COMPANY, PORUNTHAMON, PULIMATH P.O, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 612.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (PULLIKADA).

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, ROOM NO. 307, II FLOOR, B WING, AUGUST KRANTI BHAWAN, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066.

¶12

2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER R.T.I ACT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, ARPAN TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM - 691 008.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION, OFFICER UNDER R.T.I. ACT, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, 3RD FLOOR, ARPAN TOWERS, PRATHIBHA JUNCTION, KADAPPAKDADA, KOLLAM - 691 008.

¶14

4. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, BEACH ROAD BRANCH, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. ADV. SMT.H.SUBHALEKSHMI, CGC R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 21488 of 2016 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

P1	THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 28.04.2009.
P2	THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT.
P3	THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY DTD. 11.10.2014.
P4	THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 10.10.2014.
P5	THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 31.10.2014.
P6	THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 23.07.2015 BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION.
P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT APPEAL NO. CIC/MP/A/2015/002109 DTD. 4TH MAY 2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.R2A	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
EXT.R2B	COPY OF THE FORMAT ACCOMPANYING THE LETTER DATED 20/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.R2C	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/04/2009 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2D	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/08/2014 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT.R2E	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/10/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R2F	COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER DATED 21/04/2016.
EXT.R2G	COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23/05/2016.
EXT.R2H	COPY OF THE LETTER SEND TO THE CIC DATED 25/05/2016.
	//TRUE COPY//
	P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

rs.

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P7 orders passed by the authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, RTI Act), and for other related reliefs. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶30

Petitioner had availed certain credit facilities from the 4^th respondent Bank. The account was declared as NonPerforming Asset. After petitioner availed a loan from the 4^th respondent, a crime was registered by the CBI with respect to the disbursal of loan by the then incumbent in the office of the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioner, consequent to registration of the crime by the CBI, petitioner could not properly look after the commercial business, thereby started making losses and resulted in the petitioner's account being declared as Non-Performing Asset. The CBI had taken away all the documents, and thereupon the Bank could not proceed

¶31

against the petitioner for recovery of the loan. However,

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016

¶34

petitioner entered into a compromise with 4^th respondent Bank. The fact of settlement of accounts is admitted by the Bank and issued a certificate to the effect that petitioner has closed the credit facilities availed from the Bank on 07.05.2008, and there are no dues to the Bank. The title deed deposited was requested to be released. The certificate issued is produced as Ext.P1.

¶35

It is the contention of the petitioner, in order to pursue his legal remedies, he was in need of some documents. Therefore, petitioner filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 before the 3^rd respondent, evident from Ext.P2. Since the 3^rd respondent did not respond to the application even after the statutory period, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority. However, 3^rd respondent after 65 days of filing of the application, issued a reply dismissing the application, stating that petitioner's request will not come under Sec.2(f) of the RTI Act, evident from Ext.P3. Being aggrieved, a second appeal was preferred before the 2^nd respondent, evident from Exts.P4 and P5. However, no orders were passed in the appeal, consequent to which, Ext.P6 appeal is preferred before the 1^st respondent.

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016

¶38

After hearing the respective parties, Ext.P7 order is passed by the 1^st respondent, whereby the 3^rd respondent is directed to confirm to the petitioner, under information to the Commission, that the matter was still going on in the CBI Court, within one week from the receipt of the order of the Commission. It is thus challenging Exts.P3 and P7, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit, substantially admitting the factual circumstances with respect to the filing of RTI application as put forth by the petitioner. Apart from the same, it is contended, the query that was raised by the petitioner is not a subject matter coming under the purview of the “information” prescribed in the RTI Act. It was thereupon that Ext.R2(e) letter dated 11.10.2014 was issued by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner. The delay caused in providing the reply is admitted. It is also stated, on receipt of the appeal, 2^nd respondent heard the petitioner as well as the respondents, and held that the information sought for by the petitioner does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. It is further stated, the information sought to be furnished by the 1^st respondent with respect to

¶40

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016 4

¶41

the pendency of the case before the CBI Court is complied with by the 2^nd respondent within the stipulated time, evident from Exts.R2(g) and (h). That apart, it is submitted, CBI case is still pending before the Special Judge-II, CBI, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, it is the contention of respondents that no interference is warranted in Exts.P3 and P7 orders passed by the statutory authorities under the respective Act.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶43

The question to be decided is whether any manner of interference is warranted in Exts.P3 and P7 orders passed by the respective authorities. On a reading of Ext.P3, it is discernible, the information sought for by the petitioner is not a matter coming under Sec.2(f) of the RTI Act. The information sought for by the petitioner are as follows:

¶44

“1. In pursuance to the compromise between the branch and P.S. Jayakumar, Aiswarya Cashew Company, whether the branch has any claim or allegations against M/s. Aiswarya Cashew Company (sole proprietor P.S. Jayakumar, Puranthamon, Pulimath P.O., Trivandrum. (CC a/c No.57005915625)

¶45

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016 5

¶46

with regard to the credit facility availed.

¶47

2. If the answer to the above question (No.1) is yes, please furnish the details of such claim or allegations as recorded.

¶48

3. The Branch by their letter dated 28.04.2009 (a copy of which is attached herewith) has stated as follows:

¶49

“we have requested the shirasthadar, the Honourable Court of the Special Judge, CBI Court, Ernakulam to return/release the original title deeds which are mortgaged with us as security to the above credit facilities”

¶50

Does not this factual position indicate that the Bank has no claim or allegations against Aiswarya Cashew Company and a compromise had been arrived at, in the matter.”

¶51

Now the question is, whether the respondents should furnish any information with respect to the query put forth by the petitioner. Apparently, the attempt of the petitioner seems to be to secure documents to enable the petitioner to put forth the same as a defence against the prosecution initiated by the CBI. The Bank will not be in a position to say whether there are any other allegations against the petitioner, since the subject matter is pending before the CBI Court for adjudication. Since the query sought for by the petitioner cannot be answered by the authority, the authority

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016

¶54

is not bound to disclose any details with respect to the second question. The third information sought for is also somewhat of similar nature. There also, Bank will not be in a position to provide any information since the subject matter is a question which is not coming under Sec.2(f) of the RTI Act.

¶55

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it can be seen that the attempt of the petitioner was only to secure certain informations in order to establish a defence in the CBI case. The authorities under the RTI Act are bound by the provisions of the said Act. Merely because the authorities have not answered the information sought for by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the authorities have violated any provisions of the Act. This is exactly what is considered by the Appellate Authority in Ext.P7 order. In my considered opinion, the finding rendered by the 1^st respondent that the information sought for by the petitioner was only opinion, which will not come under the purview of the Act, is fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of the Act in question. The direction issued by the 1^st respondent is also a comprehensive answer to the information sought for by the petitioner, which thus means, if the matter is at large before

¶56

W.P.(C) No.21488 of 2016

¶57

¶58

the CBI Court, the authorities need not provide the information sought for by the petitioner.

¶59

Assimilating the factual situation and the provisions of law, I am fully satisfied that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in Exts.P3 and P7 orders passed by the respective authorities.

¶60

Therefore the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

¶61

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶62

//true copy//

¶63

P.S. to Judge

¶64

St/04.11.2016

Jayakumar.P.S v. Chief Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayakumar.P.S v. Chief Information Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajani Vs the District Collector, Thrissur

Parakottil Kerosone Agencies Vs Secy. to Govt.

Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs a. Harimohan

Xavier.T.J Vs State of Kerala

Leelamma Rabecca James Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

T.S. Sreekumar Vs Union of India