9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-7-2010, before the petitioner, under the Act, seeking the following informations : 1. When were the accounts of the unit M/s. Coastal Andhra Agri Feed Technologies declared NPA and the exact amount of book debts as on the date of NPA of all its accounts? 2. What is the status of the account as on 1st October, 2009, whether it is classified substandard, doubtful or loss asset? 3. Whether the Vakalpudi Branch submitted Annexure-I, for ONE TIME SETTLEMENT SCHEME FOR MSE ACCOUNTS to the Competent Authority in compliance of Circular No. 213-2009-BC-REC-09/24-09-2009 issued by General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal? 4. If not covered as to the reason why the bank OTS was not offered to the said uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal deserves to be allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Public Information Officer has filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 5. In the first place, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition, filed by the Public Information Officer, is not maintainable because even though he is an employee, he is designated as Public Information Officer, who is charged with the duty of dealing with the requests of persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to such persons. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Public Information Officer shall dispose of the requests received by him either by providing information on payment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the public authority, against whom the directions are given, or any other party, who feels aggrieved by such directions, that can question the orders passed by the appellate authorities. As such, the Public Information Officer, who filed this writ petition, is wholly incompetent to question the order of the appellate authority and the writ petition filed by him is not maintainable. 7. Even on merits, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the information sought for by Respondent No. 2 does not fall within the exempted category under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act because the information, which respondent No. 2 has sought, relates to pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, what is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
