V V Subba Roa vs Bank Of India on 20 April, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V V Subba Roa vs Bank Of India on 20 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 23.05.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03.11.2020 and first appeal dated 27.01.2021:-

(i) Provide the names of the promoter directors and or partners of SPY Agro Industries Limited?

(ii) Provide the date of NPA of the account SPY Agro Industries Limited?

(iii) Provide the relationship between the directors of SPY Agro Industries Limited and Nandi Construction Needs and Nandi Super Market of Nandyala Branch Accounts?

Page 1 of 6

(iv) Provide the date of last comprehensive review proposals of two cash credit accounts ********01 and 08 of Nandyalay Branch?

(v) Provide copy of review of proposals and latest stock inspection report two cash credit accounts ********01 and 08 of Nandyala Branch.

(vi) Provide the date of last stock statement the details of which were entered in the SRM menu of FINACLE In two cash credit accounts of Nandyala Branch 5659- 3011-01 and 08?

(vii) Provide the date of last stock inspection in the two cash credit accounts of Nandyala Branch 5659-3011-01and 08?

(viii) Provide the name of the officer who had conducted post sanction stock inspections of Nandyala Branch, as the borrower had shifted the unit from the original place besides state bank of India which was recorded with Bank?

(ix) Provide the periodicity of stock statements in the two cash credit accounts 56593011-01 and 08 of Nandyala Branch as the last date of SRM Entry is prior to 31st July in these two accounts?

(x) Provide the departmental note approved by competent authority i.e. ZLCC of Vijayawada Zone for not classifying the accounts of Nandyala as NPA despite insufficient stocks to support the outstanding balance in the accounts?

(xi) Provide the vigilance guidelines and prudential norms, HR Policies which had permitted the Zonal Manager in allowing Deputy Zonal Manager of Vijayawada Zone to post the Credit Manager of Arundalpet Branch ((1) Who has conducted pre sanction inspection and recommended for sanction of bogus and fraudulent 39 SHG loans and also (2) Recommended for sanction of spurious jewel loans at Arundalpet Branch and (3) Caused a financial loss of Rs 50 lakhs in spurious jewel loan fiancé and (4) Caused financial loss by reviewing the MSME accounts without Balance sheets, credit rating sheets and failed to monitor the accounts and (5) Allowed transfer of capital infusion funds from SHG accounts to SHG loan accounts abusing office accounts and facilitated siphoning of capital infusion Page 2 of 6 funds o AP State Government to the tune of Rs 300 lakhs.by Mrs Sarala and others) as Branch Head of Brodipet Branch despite dismissal of two officers at Arundalpet Branch for financing AHG Loans with the sole mala fide intention of siphoning Government of Andhra Pradesh State, which was fulfilled by the Credit Manager of Arundalpet Branch who was now posted as Branch Head of Brodipet Branch.

(xii) Provide the names of the officers at Arundalpet branch establishment from 01-01-

2018 to 30-06-2020, since the capital infusion funds were transferred between 01- 02-2019 and 30-04-2019.

(xiii) Provide the name of the Manager Credit and Chief Manage of Arundalpet between 01-02-2019 to 30-04-2019 as they were the responsible for siphoning of funds and their actions is a non bailable offence?

(xiv) Provide the names of the officials who have checked the L444C documents of bogus and fake SHG Groups of Arundalpet (5679) which were mentioned in the investigation report of Mr. M Udaya Bhaskar, and sanctioned by Mr. K Koteswara Rao and Mr. Emani Venkata Ratnam, as the SHG members were paid members and there were NO proper validated SHG Group resolutions to sign the renewal documents and enforcement of the original documents legally

(xv) Provide the copy of the latest stock inspection of the CC ***********96 of Hyderabad Main Branch along with the latest Review Proposal?

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03.11.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.12.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.01.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 19.02.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 23.05.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

Page 3 of 6

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 23.05.2021 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 02.12.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(iii) to (ix) "The desired information called for in your application includes information which is related to third party individuals, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals and larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of such information. You may also note that bank has fiduciary relationship with its customers and obliged to keep confidentiality of the information related to them. Hence it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(x) The information sought includes information of commercial confidence and related to third party individuals, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party and cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and no larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.

Hence, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(xi), (xiii) & (xiv) The desired information sought are repetitive in nature which are liable to be refused. Every repetition of the information in the RTI application will be an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the Right to Information Act.

(xii) The name of the officers at Arundalpet Branch establishment from 01.01.2019 to 30.06.2020 are as under:-

Mr. Ajit Basha Ms. Mary Stella Page 4 of 6 Mr. Ashok Mr. Jyothi M Mr. V Srinivas Ms. Nagamani Mr. Seshu Babu Mr. Bharat The FAA vide order dated 19.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sasi Kumar CPIO, Bank of India, Mumbai, Shri Rama Prasada Rao, CPIO, Bank of India, Vijayawada, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 02.12.2020. They further submitted that most of the information sought by the appellant pertained to accounts of third parties i.e. M/s SPY Agro Industries, M/s Nandi Super Market and Nandi Constructions Needs, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. They further submitted that the appellant had no connection with the aforesaid accounts.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that point-wise reply was given by the respondent vide letter dated 02.12.2020. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that the information sought by the appellant pertained to accounts of third parties i.e. M/s SPY Agro Industries, M/s Nandi Super Market and Nandi Constructions Needs, and the appellant had no connection with the said accounts. Therefore, they Page 5 of 6 denied the information under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information. There appears to be no infirmity in the reply given by the respondent. The Commission is of the view that there is no larger public interest in warranting the disclosure of information. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-


                                                                             सुरेश चं ा)
                                                          (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                          सूचना आयु )
                                               Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                दनांक/Date: 19.04.2023
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)

Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
Bank of India Vijaywada Zonal
Office, D. No. 31-23-1A, PVR
Complex, 1st Floor, Beside
BSNL Bhavan, Chuttugunta,
Vijayawada - 520004

First Appellate Authority
Bank of India RTI Cell,
Legal Department, 4th Floor,
EAST Wing, Star House,
C-5, G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051

Shri V V Subha Rao




                                                                               Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission