Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Chinta Lakshminarayana vs State Bank Of India on 25 November, 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/SBIND/A/2024/124010

 Chinta Lakshminarayana                                          ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
 CPIO:
 State Bank of India,                                       ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Secunderabad

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 19.02.2024                FA      : 29.04.2024            SA     : 22.07.2024

 CPIO : Not On record            FAO : Not On record             Hearing : 17.11.2025


Date of Decision: 21.11.2025
                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) During 1997-98, while I was working as Chief Manager in SBI, Padmaraonagar Branch, I issued Bank Guarantees to the following firms in favor of NSIC for supply of Raw Material. The NISC, instead of supplying Raw material, paid to the firms in cash and thus facilitated the fraud. This observation was recorded by Additional District Judge, RR District in this Judgment issued on mortgage suit filed by Our Bank against the firm and NSIC.

               Name of the firm                                 Amount (Rs. lacs)
              a) M/s S.V.R. Enterprises                        32.0
              b) M/s D.M.K. Excavations and Constructions      15.0
              c) M/s S.N. Reddy Enterprises                    7.00
              d) M/s Suryodaya High-Tech Engg. Pvt. Ltd        20.0
              e) M/s Timber Matics                             20.0


     2)      The Bank filed mortgage suites in the year 2001 and obtained decrees as
             mentioned here
                                      Suit number                    Year of Decree
              i. M/s S.N.       Reddy O.S 139 of 2001 in Ranga Reddy 2007
              Enterprises             district court


     3)      The above mentioned decree is enclosed as ENCL1, duely highlighting the

observations of the judge in Page No 18 that the NSIC had played the fraud along with applicant and guarantor as such recover the amount from NSIC. On receipt of judgement the NSIC appealed in then AP high court (current Telangana High court) and obtained stay order. The stay was vacated by 3 bench Supreme Court in criminal appeal Numbers 1375-1376 of 2013 dated 28th March 2018. The vacation order is in Page No 31 and 32 of judgement which is Highlighted and enclosed marking as No 2.

4) In the above submission I hope the bank has taken necessary measures to recover the amount from NSIC duely filing EP if So, please advice the amount recovered from NSIC.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.04.2024.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.07.2024.

4. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Md. Alibudin, Regional Manager attended the hearing through video conference.

5. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought information regarding recovery of amount from NSIC. Further, he objected against the invocation of Section 8(1)

(j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO in the matter and argued that he did not agree that the information sought could be denied on such grounds as he was a victim in the case.

6. When queried by the Commissions regarding a response furnish to the RTI application, the respondent stated that a response to the RTI application had been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 09.01.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

As regards to the RTI request of Shri Chinta Lakshminarayana, asking for the amount of recovery from NSIC our reply is as per Section 8(1) (j) of RTI act 2005 the said information cannot be provided.

When queried by the Commission regarding late reply, the respondent could not submit proper justification regarding the same.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 09.01.2025. The Commission notes that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Page 3 of 5 Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

8. Besides, there is considerable delay in disposing the RTI application and the first appeal and the respondent failed to explain the cogent reasons for such inordinate delay. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, citing reasons for delayed reply to the RTI application, along with the comments of the FAA's by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper- compliance/add, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 21.11.2025 Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-4, Administrative Office, Secunderabad Panty Circle, Secunderabad-500003

2. Chinta Lakshminarayana Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)