Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Bhatnagar vs Bank Of Baroda on 20 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2453
1 WP-1181-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1181 of 2025
ADITYA BHATNAGAR
Versus
BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Khandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated
17.12.2024, passed by the learned Central Information Commissioner in
Second Appeal No.CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/650798 (Aditya Bhatnagar Vs.
CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Bhopal, holing that the information which was
sought by the petitioner-borrower, has been rightly furnished by the Public
Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as PIO for short) of the bank and,
therefore, no further indulgence is required.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the
petitioner is that the information as was sought vide Annx.P/2, dated
15.06.2023, has not been furnished in full and, therefore, in terms of the
provisions contained in sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005' for short), it
was incumbent upon the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer to examine whether denial of request was justified or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2453
2 WP-1181-2025
not.
3. On going through the application, it is evident that this application
was filed by one Shri Aditya Bhatnagar. He is said to be Director in Extol
Industries Ltd.. Information has been sought on the following points,
namely, (i) Complete copy of file with all related documents to above e-
auction; i.e. in relation to the property situated at Plot No.D-23 & 24,
Industrial area Phase-2, Mandideep, Goharganj, Raisen, where Lease Holder
is shown as M/s Extol Industries Limited; (ii) All proceedings and decision
related to he above e-auction; (iii) Amount adjusted in the loan and balance
remaining in the loan account; (iv) Interest and other charges added to NPA
value; and (v) value report of the property with complete details and basis of
valuation used for e-auction.
4. This application was duly replied to by the PIO of the bank and
reply is Annx.P/3, dated 25.07.2023. Being dissatisfied with the reply,
petitioner had filed First appeal to the General Manager and PIO of Bank of
Baroda, alleging that false, misleading and partial information was given by
the PIO. In reference to this, reply was furnished by the bank vide Annx.P/6,
dated 25.09.2023, and thereafter, Second appeal was preferred, which has
been decided by the Central Information Commission by the impugned
order.
5. When this Court wanted to know from Shri Aditya Khandekar,
learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any authorisation on
behalf of M/s Extol Industries Ltd., then it is submitted that information was
sought in his private capacity and there is no authorisation available on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2453
3 WP-1181-2025
record.
6. Second aspect is that when asked Shri Khandekar, learned counsel
fairly admits that possession of the property is already taken over by the
concerned bank and the matter in relation to the said property is disposed of
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT' for
short), of competent jurisdiction.
7. Issue is that the bank has already furnished information and if, that
is treated to be inadequate by the petitioner, then he has a remedy of filing
application for discovery of documents before the DRT and instead of doing
so, it is now being said that the Central Information Commission was obliged
to examine whether the denial of a request, was justified or not.
8. I have gone through the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of
Section 19 of the Act of 2005. It categorically provides that in any
proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be
on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
9. In the present case, there is no denial of the request, but it appears
that petitioner is not satisfied with the information furnished to it by the PIO.
Thus, if the information furnished by the PIO is not upto the satisfaction of
the petitioner, then he has remedy elsewhere other than agitating it in First
Appeal and Second Appeal, because after furnishing the information
available with the CPIO of the bank, it cannot be said that his request was
denied.
10. Even otherwise, it is evident that information sought by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2453
4 WP-1181-2025
petitioner vide Annx.P/2, will come within the purview of the collection of
information which is forbidden in terms of the provisions contained in
Section 6 and 7(a) of the Act of 2005, and, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the decision of the Central Information Commission, where it
has categorically recorded a finding that the stand taken by the CPIO to the
effect that it has already supplied the necessary information, actually does
not call for indulgence in the writ jurisdiction of this Court specially in view
of judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education
and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others in Civil appeal No.6454 of
2011, dated 09.08.2011, wherein it is held as under :-
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands of directions under RTI Act
for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing
information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to
become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to
destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it
be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials
striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of
the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging heir regular
duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2453
5 WP-1181-2025
authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public
authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal
and regular duties."
11. Thus, Petitioner is not denied remediless to seek desired
information if it is required in a better particulars by moving an appropriate
application before the DRT, where the dispute is already pending.
Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
