Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ramesh M vs Canara Bank on 19 September, 2025

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2024/635086 +
                                      CIC/CANBK/A/2024/629024

Ramesh M                                                      ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank,
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh                                  ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):

Sl. No.    Second       Date of     Date of         Date of       Date of    Date of
           Appeal       RTI         CPIO's          First         FAA's      Second
           No.          Application Reply           Appeal        Order      Appeal

    1.     635086       13.05.2024 15.06.2024 08.07.2024 07.08.2024 13.08.2024

    2.     629024       27.03.2024 02.05.2024 13.05.2024 15.06.2024 07.07.2024

Note: The instant set of appeal(s) have been clubbed for decision as these relate to
RTI Applications based on the same subject matter.

Date of Hearing: 11.09.2025
Date of Decision: 19.09.2025

                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                      ORDER

Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2024/635086

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 6
 "Sub: Status of my complaint to the AGM, Canara Bank Regional Office, Nellore - Shri Adari Nagaraju regarding request for a transparent enquiry and investigation about fraudster ELLANKI VENKATESWARLU and ex-NNND agent YERRA VENKATA SUBBAIAH NAIDU, violations of Canara bank manual of instructions in Canara bank Nellore main branch dtd 19.03.2024-reg.  Ref: 1. CIC/CANBK/A/2020/688868 DT.10.04.2023

2. CANBK/RE/PIO/SA/CIC/CANBANK/A/2020/688868 DT.18.05.2023

3. CANBK/RONLR/PIO/RTI/SMR/2023-24/267 DT.22.06.2023

4. Copy of complaint forwarded to the Manager, Nellore main branch, Canara Bank.

5. CANBK/RONLR/RTI/APPEAL/SMR/455/2023-24 DT 26.07.2023..... With reference to all the above, I have raised a complaint to the Assistant General Manager-Canara Bank Regional Office, Nellore to conduct a transparent enquiry and proper Investigation regarding the following and initiate proper legal action for their crime -

1. Involvement of Yerra Venkata Subbaiah Naidu and fraudster Ellanki Venkateswarlu's money laundering scam in Canara Bank Nellore Main branch and using the collected depositors' money for his private money lending business, for funding his anti-National activities and depositing the collected money in NNND schemes in Canara Bank Nellore Main branch at their whims and fancies.

2. Ellanki Venkateswarlu and Y.V. Subbaiah Naidu worked hand-in-glove in violating the Canara Bank's Manual of instructions for Term deposits to illegally collect money from the customers of Canara Bank. Ellanki Venkateswarlu impersonating a Canara Bank official, his possession of a forged Canara bank ID card and swindling the customers of Canara Bank and the general public for 24+ years.

Page 2 of 6

3. Involvement of any Canara Bank officials who colluded with Ellanki Venkateswarlu in the elaborate and long-running money laundering scam in Canara Bank Nellore Main branch under the guise of collecting money for NNND deposits from the customers/Account holders of Canara Bank, using the collected depositors' money for his private money lending business, for funding his anti-National activities and depositing the collected money in NNND schemes in Canara Bank Nellore Main branch at their whims and fancies...... I hereby request you to provide the following under RTI Act, 2005: -

1. Status of my complaint to the AGM, Canara Bank Regional Office, Nellore - Shri Adari Nagaraju regarding request for a transparent enquiry and investigation about fraudster ELLANKI VENKATESWARLU and ex-NNND agent YERRA VENKATA SUBBAIAH NAIDU, violations of Canara bank manual of instructions in Canara bank Nellore main branch dtd 19.03.2024." 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 15.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"We wish to inform you that the information sought is in this form does not fall under the purview of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 07.08.2024 stated as under: -

"After examination of materials available on record, we wish to inform you that investigation was already conducted in this regards and Sri. Y V Subbaiah Naidu who acted as NNND agent at our Nellore Main branch (0628), now he is out of service from the Canara Bank."

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.08.2024.

Page 3 of 6

Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2024/629024

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information as under:

"Copy of my complaint to the AGM, Canara Bank Regional Office, Nellore dated 19.03.2024 regarding inquiry against fraudster ELLANKI VENKATESWARLU and ex- NNND agent YERRA VENKATA SUBBAIAH NAIDU."

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"We wish to inform you that the said information sought for belongs to the applicant himself/herself. Copy of compliant filed by the applicant is his/her personal document having possession of it and should definitely maintain a copy of the submission made to the bank.
Therefore, With regard to point no. 1, we wish to inform you that this document does not fall under the purview of "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 15.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 07.07.2024.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Y V Sivanagaprasad, DM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The Appellant stated that he is gravely affected by the Bank's unsatisfactory responses and narrated the alleged fraud being committed by the individuals referred to Page 4 of 6 in his RTI Application and insisted that he has sought to know if his complaint under reference was received by the Bank or not.

5. The Respondent reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO's replies in both the cases cannot be called into question as concededly, the Appellant has not sought for any information as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Moreover, the contentions of the Appellant during the hearing are also unsubstantiated as none of these RTI Application(s) seek information about receipt and/or diary details of the complaint, rather it appears to be the belief of the Appellant that his queries entail this aspect of wanting to confirm receipt, however, such liberal interpretation cannot be accorded to these RTI queries as being not conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Even the copy of the Appellant's own complaint is such record which the Appellant already has access to and is not something which is under the exclusive control of the public authority and this position has been exemplified by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of PIO, High Court of Madras vs. B. Bharathi in W.P.No.26781 of 2013.

7. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter.

8. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 19.09.2025 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO Canara Bank, Regional Office, 1st Floor, Plot No. 05, Rithwik Enclave, Post - A K Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524004 2 Ramesh M Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)