K. Malla Reddy vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 13 December, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K. Malla Reddy vs Rural / Gramin Banks on 13 December, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 22.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 13.10.2017 and first appeal dated 28.11.2017:

(i) The appellant's mother Smt. K. Vinoda w/o K. Veera Reddy "Agricultural Short-term Crop Loan" raised from Yes Bank Branch on Agricultural Loan Passbook no.90.

Page 1 of 4

(ii) The Government giving the Subsidies under the "Crop Loan waiver Scheme". I requested you give me the information about the Subsidy given to my mother under the above Scheme from 2017 to till date.

(iii) The appellant requests the bank to give the documents submitted for the Crop Loan. Like 1-B (ROR).

(iv) Documents like pahanies submitted to raise the loan (the loan was sanctioned by the Telengana Government and given to the Banks, the Banks offered the loons to the formers.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 13.10.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Telangana Gramina Bank, Odela Branch, Telangana, seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.11.2017. The CPIO replied on 21.12.2017. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 10.01.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 22.01.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 22.01.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.12.2017 denied the information under clause (j) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 10.01.2018 asked the appellant to submit proof for Hindu Undivided family to enable them to provide the information.

Page 2 of 4

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Chandrasekhar, CPIO Telengana Grameena Bank, Hyderabad, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought by was wrongly denied by the respondent claiming third party information. He argued that information sought was not personal information as the information regarding short term loan raised by his mother on the agriculture land belonged to undivided joint family property. Hence, he was entitled to get this information. In response to the query of the Commission, the appellant stated that there was some family dispute and due to which consent of third party could not be obtained. 5.2. The respondent inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information of short term crop loan availed by Smt. K. Vinoda (mother of the applicant) on agriculture land. The information pertained to third party which was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act and also it had no nexus with any public interest and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. They also submitted that the appellant failed to furnish any proof of Hindu Undivided family as directed by the FAA to enable them to furnish the information. In the absence of such documents, they expressed their inability to provide the information as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that due reply has already been given by the respondent. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant failed to produce any document which proves that property against which said loan was sanctioned belongs to Hindu Undivided Family. Thus information sought was relating third party and the same cannot be given to the appellant. The Commission feels that there is no Page 3 of 4 substance in the appeal and interest of justice would be served if the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/ Date: 11.12.2019 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (R. Sitarama Murthy) (आर. सीताराम मू त) Deputy Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. TELENGANA GRAMEENA BANK 2-1-520, 2nd Floor, Vijaya Sri Sai Celestia, Street No.9,Nallakunta, Shankermutt Road, Hyderabad - 500044.

THE F.A.A, TELENGANA GRAMEENA BANK, 2-1-520, 2nd Floor, Vijaya Sri Sai Celestia, Street No.9,Nallakunta, Shankermutt Road, Hyderabad - 500044.

K. MALLA REDDY Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission