Central Information Commission
Mr.T. Ramasamy vs Indian Bank on 16 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000960/18942
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000960
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. T. Ramasamy
No.H 16, Phase II, TNHB Colony,
V.M. Chatram, Tirunelveli -7.
Tamilnadu.
Respondent : Mr. G. Manoharan
PIO & DGM Corporate office, Indian Bank 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Saiai, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014 RTI application filed on : 10/12/2011 PIO replied : 12/01/2012 First Appeal : 28/01/2012 First Appellate Authority order : 24/02/2012 Second Appeal received on : 19/03/2012 Sl. Queries Reply 1 Mr. Savarimuthu enforced SARFAESI Act on our agricultural It is opinionated query for properties against SARFAESI Act 31(1) and forced me to go out even at which no reply is warranted. the age of 71 ,and my family from my farmhouse by illegal sale and destructed entire agricultural properties including closer of two open wells to the value of Rs.20,000,000.0O . After destruction bank accepted as mistake and cancelled the sale. If so what are all the factors forced authorized officer to prepare antedated NOC to confirms the sale. 2 Mr. Savarimuthu DGM refused to accept RBI formulated OTS amount RTI is an avenue to seek and sold our family livelihood properties by getting huge bribe, violated records from public SARFAESI Act to the maximum level. He and his associates refused to Authority. give informations to hide the facts, As the PlO and FAA of Indian Bank All available records have refused to give even published Auction notice. The Hon'ble CIC been provided to applicant. ordered to give auction notice without any punishments. Taking If not satisfied with the advantages PIO supplied us one forgery auction notice. In which there reply/order already given by was no paper publication, no EMD and other payments as per RIO and AA it is open to the SARFAESI Act. The forgery was communicated to CMD of Indian applicant to explore the Bank. What are all the punishments given by the CMD to the PIO and avenue of appeal to higher FAA for supplying forgery auction notice and by after 200 days on my authorities available under RTI application the RTI Act.
3 FAA of Indian Bank under RTI Act vide letter no. Ho CSI, RTI.062 Bank did not mention any A027.2009-1 0 30.05.2009 informed the extend of land sold for information regarding the Page 1 of 3 Geotech loan is 5816.25 sq feet. After very long time PIO of Indian extent of land sold in the bank under RTI informed by vide letter HO.CSC.RTI 377 (90-10) CIC Referred no HO .CSC RTI 005-2010-11 extend sold is 4764 sq.feet Which one was correct what 377(09-10) CIC 005-2010-11 are all the punishment given to them far giving delayed wrong/different statement under RTI acts.
4 The Hon'ble CIC in its order File No.CIC/SM/A12009/001931 directed Bank has provided all the PIO to supply photo copies of entire records and documents. But PIO available records to the not respected the Hon'ble dc order and refused to give entire documents applicant/appellant through to hide the facts and supplied 4 pages only more than 90% were not various Courts and also supplied to us. So many reminders to supply became useless. What are under RTI Act. all the punishment given by the CMD to the PIO for non respect of Nothing more to provide. above Hon'ble CIC order.
5 How many pages are in the entire Geotech records file till 1.12.11. The information sought is Please give me one copy of entire file (I need entire copy to stop general in nature and not inclusion of antedated files in the future and to get justice). specific. Hence, we could not provide the information.
6 One copy of continuous clear loan ledger book copy from 05.10.1993 to The statement of account had 02.12.2011 without any missing data/pages which bank must have for already been provided to the the recovery of loan. applicant through Court.
Please refer to our earlier reply HO CSC RTI 809:2010-11 dt. 14.10.2010 addressed to Mr. K R Basu.
7 How many pages are in the above ledger book copy? Do Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Order of the FAA:
"In reference to the appeal, it is observed that the appellant associates/relatives viz. K R Asokan and Shri K R Basu had sent several applications, first appeals and second appeals since July 2009 to the authorities to put pressure on the Bank for one time settlement. Bank had allowed inspection of files to the son of the appellant Shri K R Basu as per directions of Central Information Commission and furnished the copies of information, requested by him as available in the flies subject to exemptions under the RTI Act. Bank has furnished the information to the referred persons as available with it and cannot consider the applications on the same matter time and again which will divert the resources of the Bank unduly under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act."
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response from CPIO and FAA Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. T. Ramasamy on video conference from NIC-Tirunelveli Studio; Respondent: Mr. G. Manoharan, PIO & DGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The Appellant admits that an order has been given by the Commission for inspection of all the relevant records relating to his case. The Appellant states that he may need photocopies of more pages than the Commission has allowed free of cost. In that event the Appellant will pay for the extra pages at Rs.2/- per page and receive the extra pages that he wants.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
The Appeal allowed.
The PIO will facilitate an inspection of all the records relevant to the Appellant's case and provide photocopies as directed.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 3 of 3