Delhi High Court
Central Bank Of India vs Union Of India & Others on 29 October, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 29.10.2013
+ W.P.(C) 4190/2013
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yogesh Pachauri, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sweety Manchanda, CGSC.
Counsel for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
The respondent No.2 before this Court, who is the brother of
respondent No.3, Sonia Mendiratta, sought the following information
from the CPIO of the petitioner-Central Bank of India:
"1. On what date this loan was disbursed?
2. On which property/stock/security the said loan/money
was given to Think Communication at G-23, Triveni Complex.
3. Whether Sonia Mendiratta had information you that this
is a disputed/suit property and there is a stay granted by the
Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 14.09.2006."
2. The information was denied by the PIO on the ground that the
said information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short „RTI Act‟). The first
appeal filed by respondent No.2 having been dismissed, he preferred a
second appeal before the Central Information Commission. Vide
impugned order dated 27.5.2013, the Commission directed the petitioner
to disclose the information sought by respondent No.2.
3. The case of respondent No.2 is that property No.G-23, Triveni
Commercial Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi was owned by
late Smt. Trilochan Kaur who was the mother of respondents 2 & 3 and
on her demise the aforesaid property devolved on four legal heirs of
Smt. Trilochan Kaur including respondents 2 & 3. Thus, respondent
No.2 claims to be one of the co-owners of the aforesaid property.
4. Notice of the writ petition was issued to respondent No.3 as well
and she has been duly served through her brother but she is not present
in the Court and nor has she filed any counter affidavit.
5. The provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) RTI Act on which reliance was
placed by the CPIO would not apply in case the information is sought by
the person to whom it pertains. Such an exemption can be claimed only
when the „personal information‟ relates to a third party. Since according
to respondent No.2 he is one of the co-owners of the said property, in
case any information with respect to mortgage of the said property with
the bank is provided, that would not be a personal information related
only to respondent No.3, she being only one of the co-owners and would
equally a personal information of the other co-owners, including
respondent No.2. Consequently providing such an information, to a co-
owner of the property will not be the exemption under Section 8 (1) (j)
of the Act, therefore, will not be available, when the information of this
nature is sought by a co-owner of the property derogation of the
provisions contained in Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
6. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to
the petitioner to inform respondent No.2 as to whether property No.G-
23, Triveni Commercial Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi
was mortgaged with it by respondent No.2 and if so, what was the
amount of loan which was taken by respondent No.2 against mortgage
of the aforesaid property and on which date. The petitioner-Bank shall
also intimate respondent No.2 as to whether respondent No.3 had
submitted information to the Bank that the aforesaid property was a
disputed property and there was a stay granted by this Court in respect
of the aforesaid property. In case the loan was not obtained against the
mortgage of property at G-23, Triveni Commercial Complex, Sheikh
Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi, the petitioner-Bank would only inform
respondent No.2 accordingly without disclosing the particulars of the
property mortgaged with it.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of
OCTOBER 29, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
