E. Paul Yesudass vs Indian Bank on 14 August, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

E. Paul Yesudass vs Indian Bank on 14 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.06.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 15.11.2017 and first appeal dated 09.01.2018:-

(i) Reason for freezing Tamil Evangelical Lutheran church savings account No. xxxxx0636?

(ii) Without prior information letter from the bank to the Account Holders can Saving Bank account be freezed?

(iii) The capacity of the person who can recommend or request to freeze the saving Bank Account under RBI Rules?

Page 1 of 5

(iv) Can appellant get the interest amount for the cash deposited in his savings Bank Account during the period of freeze of account?

(v) If there any chance to implement the letter from church administrator and freeze our saving account while the Status-quo for church administration by Supreme Court of India is prevailing?

(vi) Is there any order provided by court that the person who sent letter to block the account is an administrator?

(vii) Is there any court order to freeze savings account? If so provide the photocopy of the court order.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.11.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank Chennai, Tamil Nadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 20.12.2017 and 20.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 09.01.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the fist appeal vide order dated 16.03.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 11.06.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 11.06.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide the requisite information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 20.01.2018 replied that the referred to account was frozen on 25.10.2017. The FAA upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Tamil Selvan, CPIO, Indian Bank, Kancheepuram attended the hearing through audio conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was the Treasurer of the account of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and was authorized to operate the account. The respondent had not provided the requisite information so far. 5.2. The respondent while defending their reply 20.01.2018 submitted that detailed information relating to the freezing of account as per orders of High Court was made available to the appellant. The appellant had further sought clarification in respect of Page 2 of 5 the action taken by them in pursuance to the order of the High Court. The clarification being out of the purview of section 2 (f) of RTI Act, could not be provided to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given vide CPIO's letter dated 20.01.2018. The public authority was not under an obligation to provide explanation in connection with the action taken by them under the provisions of the RTI Act. In Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay&Ors.; Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011; in the judgment dated 09.08.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......."

It being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

                                                                         सुरेश चं ा)
                                                      (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                      सूचना आयु )
                                           Information Commissioner (सू
                                                           दनांक/Date: 13.08.2020
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


                                                                            Page 3 of 5
 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :
INDIAN BANK
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CELL,
254-260 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI ROYAPETTAH,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 014

THE F.A.A,
INDIAN BANK
CORPORATE OFFICE,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CELL,
254-260 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI ROYAPETTAH,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 014

E. PAUL YESUDASS




                                            Page 4 of 5
 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission