STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DAYANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Bank, established under the provisions of The State Bank of India Act, 1955 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for assailing the order dtd. 13/3/2023 made by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi at Annexure-A whereby a direction has been issued 'to give certified copy of information' to the 1st respondent herein in respect of Item Nos. 1 & 2 enlisted in his RTI Application dtd. 19/8/2021 from the available records within thirty days.

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner bank argues that the information/copies of documents directed to be furnished relate to 2009 Loan Dossier of the 1st respondent; after the lapse of ten years, ordinarily banks do not preserve such documents, their purpose having been accomplished and therefore, the records do not avail for furnishment; secondly, the subject documents do not fall within the compulsive furnishment category and therefore, there cannot be a coercive direction to provide copies thereof; thirdly, the 1st respondent in his Civil Appeal Diary No.39558/2002 had specifically told Apex Court that he was ready and willing to pay the dues. It is only to delay if not defraud the petitioner-Bank, the subject RTI Application has been made and therefore, no direction of the kind would have been granted for the apparent want of bona fide; in support of this, the counsel highlights the criminal cases launched by the 1st respondent against the officials of his client.

(3.) After service of notice, the 1st respondent has entered appearance through his counsel on record and filed the Statement of Objections resisting the petition. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He contends that the petitioners' version as to unavailability of Loan Dossier is not true; in fact petitioners had produced the subject documents enlisted in Item Nos. 2 & 3 of the RTI Application before the NCLT as recently as in 2021 itself; his client had never executed the subject Letters of Credit (NFB) nor had he put his signatures to the documents in question; petitioner-bank absolutely has no justification whatsoever for withholding the subject documents/information; the filing of criminal cases against the bank officials is irrelevant for the adjudication of this petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.