Central Information Commission
N. Shanmugam vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 7 May, 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/IDBIL/A/2024/108405
N Shanmugam ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: IDBI Bank Ltd.
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.12.2023 FA : 31.01.2024 SA : 12.03.2024
CPIO : 25.01.2024 FAO : 27.02.2024 Hearing : 05.05.2025
Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Details and information's regarding: In Puducherry Registration District Reddiyarpalayam S.R.D, Oulgaret Municipality, Village No.36, Reddiyarpalayam revenue village, Cadastre No.1, R.S. No 175/3, Regarding to vacate the movable properties:Page 1 of 5
1. How many letters has been given by the bank to vacate the movable properties to the promoters. On what dates the letters has been given by bank, Copy of the same.
2. How many letters has been given by the promoters to inspect the properties before taking delivery of the movable properties. On what dates letters has been given to bank, Copy of the same.
3. Has inspection been allowed to the promoters to view the property, on what dates inspection has been allowed by bank? Details of the 'same, a. If not inspection been allowed to the promoters, Reason for not allowing for inspection.
b. Has the bank had obtained permission from DRT/ Puducherry Collector to transfer the movable property from Nellithope to Manapet village. On what date the transfer of movables has been made.
c. On what basis movable properties which were not returned after giving multiple letters, were reflected in sale notice received by us on 23.11.2023, vide DRC NO: 1/2020 dated 18.11.2023. On what basis and which law permits to sell the properties which were not mortgaged, d. Name and designation of the bank officials who had seized the properties during 2019.
e. Name and designation of the bank officials who had transferred the movable properties during 2020, etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Reply to Q1 to Q3: You may obtain a copy of the letter issued on May 20, 2020 and September 15, 2020 by making payment of Rs. 10/- (Total 5 pages, Rs.2/- per page).Page 2 of 5
Reply to Q3 (a): Query seeking opinion/answer/ explanation/ clarification/ etc. cannot be termed as information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Reply to Q3 (b): You may obtain a copy of order dated July 18, 2019 issued by Hon'ble Dist. Collector - cum Dist. Magistrate, Puducherry by making payment of Rs. 4/- (Total 2 pages, Rs.2/- per page).
Reply to Q3 (c): You may obtain a copy of the Order of Attachment dated June 3, 2023, issued by Recovery Officer, DRT-III, Chennai by making payment of Rs. 20/- (Total 10 pages, Rs.2/- per page).
Reply to Q3 (d), (e) & (f): Authorized officer of IDBI Bank. However, name of the officer cannot be shared as this related to personal information and is exempted u/s. 8(1) (j) of RTI Act from disclosure.
Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 27.02.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.03.2024.
5. The appellant along with his daughter and on behalf of the respondent Rahul Kulkarni, APIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant's representative inter alia submitted that her father (appellant) had availed a loan and his account had been declared NPA. In pursuance to the bank having initiated SARFAESI proceedings in their case, he had sought information regarding authorization of certain unhypothecated objects/items. However, the respondent had provided incorrect and misleading information in response to his RTI application.
Page 3 of 57. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was a defaulting borrower and in pursuance to the SARFAESI proceedings they had secured a decree in their favour. Moreover, most of the queries were in the nature of seeking clarification, hence, not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Besides, the information sought regarding officials who had authorized action in the case of the appellant's NPA account, was exempted under provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that appropriate reply has been given by the CPIO, as per provisions of the RTI Act. It is noted that the appellant was unable to point out specific points in the RTI application and corresponding responses he was aggrieved with. Besides, the appellant insisted on disclosure of names of authorizing bank officials, which were exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the appellant's attention is drawn towards the judgment dated 13.11.2019 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" include names; the relevant extract has been reproduced as under:
"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 Page 4 of 5 conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."
In view of the above, the Commission finds 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/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 07.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO I.D.B.I Bank Limited, CPIO, Regd. Office:
I. D.B.I. TOWER, W.T.C. Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 2 N Shanmugam Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)