Central Information Commission
Mrs.Stella Kanagaraj vs Central Bank on 12 February, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL.: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001606/VS/02109
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001606/VS
Dated: 12.2.2013
Appellant: Ms. Stella Kanagaraj,
No.6, Old Police Hospital Street,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli,
Tamil Nadu627002
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Central Bank of India, Reg. Office,
Raja Muthaia Mandram,
1st Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Madurai625020
Date of Hearing 12.2.2013
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 7.10.2010 with the PIO asking for a true copy of a letter dated 11.1.2007 sent by one, Ms. K. Parvathi of Nagarcoil to Regional Office of the respondent bank at Madurai. The PIO denied the information on 18.10.2010 on the ground of it being third party information.
2. Not being satisfied with the reply of CPIO, the appellant again made an appeal to the FAA on 29.10.2010 and again on 11.1.2011. The FAA held on 15.2.2011 that the information sought comes under the exemption from disclosure clauses under section 8(1)(d), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant approached the Commission on 31.5.2011 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant was represented by a legal counsel, who referred to the RTI application and stated that the application is only on one point, whereby a copy of the letter stated in the RTI application is being sought. The appellant stated that the letter is addressed to the Regional Manager of the respondent Bank at Madurai, which was written by a person (Ms. K. Parvathi), by which the bank was exhorted for clandestine sale of the material in a certain premises.
4. The respondent explained by way of background that the appellant's husband had taken a loan from the bank and after the loan became bad, the legal proceedings were launched and the property in question that had been offered as security, that came up for sale through the NPA and DRT system. It was stated that after the account became NPA, proceedings were launched against the appellant's husband, i.e., in fact against the legal heirs and during the pendency of the suit, action was taken under the SARFAESI Act and the property was sold out.
5. The appellant stated that she wanted a copy of the letter referred to in the RTI application for the purpose of defending her financial interests. When the appellant was asked who has written the letter and to whom, it was brought out that this was written by Ms. K. Parvathi to the Regional Manager, Madurai.
6. During the course of the hearing, it emerged that Ms. Parvathi was also a claimant of the property of the appellant's husband.
Decision
7. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information along with copy of the letters sought in the RTI application. Compliance must be done within 30 days of the issuance of this order.
Appeal is disposed off. Copy of this decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer