A. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Indian Overseas Bank on 9 April, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 3]

Central Information Commission

A. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Indian Overseas Bank on 9 April, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.03.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 12.07.2018 and first appeal dated 09.11.2018:-

 Information about Cheques issued by Devnar Foundation for the Blind.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 12.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Koti, seeking aforesaid information.

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO vide letter dated 05.10.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with that, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.11.2018 The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 13.03.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 13.03.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.10.2018 that the information sought related to customer of the bank which was held by them in fiduciary capacity, hence, was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA concurred with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kaustav, Chief Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought the details of the cheques as to whether the cheques were honored and as to whether the amounts had been remitted to the respective account holders. The appellant further submitted that he had obtained information in respect of the cheques from a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2017 and that the bank had not provided the requisite information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information related to third party, hence, information could not be parted with him. The respondent further relied upon the decisions of the CIC dated 31.07.2018 [CIC/MP/A/2014/000326], 10.07.2018 [CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/133551] and 07.02.2017 [CIC/MP/A/2015/001583].

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 05.10.2018. Further, the appellant did not demonstrate any larger public Page 2 of 3 interest warranting disclosure of the information. That being so, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the CPIO. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 08.04.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, SURABHI ARCADE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD - 500 001 THE F.A.A, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B. No. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 SH.A. VIJAYA BHASKAR REDDY Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission