Central Information Commission
Mrs Arunachalam vs Indian Bank on 7 March, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002746
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of first hearing : 6th January 2016
Date of first order : 6th January 2016
Date of second hearing : 7th March 2016
Date of final order : 7th March 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Arunachalam,
TrusteeSecretary, C/o. Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Sanathana Dharma Education &
Health Trust (Reg.), No2, Sundaram Street,
Arumuga Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai
600053
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Indian Bank
254260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai 600014 RTI Application filed on : 23/05/2014 CPIO replied on : 12/06/2014 First Appeal filed on : 03/07/2014 First Appellate Authority order on : 11/08/2014 2nd Appeal received on : 31/10/2014 Attendance during the hearing on 6.1.2016.
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri A. Deepak Senthil, Senior Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai.
Attendance during the hearing on 7.3.2016.
The Appellant was represented by his son, Shri Shiv Shankar, who was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai with an authorization letter from the Appellant to represent him.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri A. Deepak Senthil, Senior Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai.
Dr. B. N. Viswanathan was present on behalf of Smt. V. Sundarmabal (third party) at the NIC Studio, Chennai with an authorization letter from Smt. Sundarmabal.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking copies of the notices received from or issued on behalf of Smt. V. Sundarmabal or Dr. B. N. Viswanathan, seeking certain information with regard to the bank account and term loan account of Sri Kanchi Kamakotti Sanathana Dharma Education and Health Trust and of the reply given by the bank to the said notices. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal. Hearing on 6.1.2016
2. The Appellant stated that he is the TrusteeSecretary of the above trust and Smt. V. Sundarmabal is also a trustee. He further submitted that there is a litigation between the trustees.
3. The Respondents stated that Smt. V. Sundarmabal continues to be the trustee of the trust and was also the guarantor of a loan of Rs. 1.10 crores, given by the bank to the trust, which have since been settled. In response to our query, they further submitted that the Appellant is the TrusteeSecretary of the trust and is also the authorized signatory of the accounts of the trust. Consequently, he is competent to seek information on behalf of the trust. In response to our further query, the Respondents stated that no notice was received from either Smt. V. Sundarmabal or Dr. B. N. Viswanathan. However, Smt. V. Sundarmabal filed an RTI application, seeking some information regarding the account(s) of the trust and the information was provided by the bank.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties and note that as per the submissions made by the bank officials, the Appellant, in his capacity as TrusteeSecretary and the authorized signatory of the accounts, is competent to seek information regarding the accounts of the trust from the bank. Further, it is noted that the information sought by Smt. V Sundarambal was regarding the accounts of the trust. Therefore, it appears, primafacie, that the information sought by the Appellant at points No. 1 and 2 of his RTI application cannot be denied to him, as it relates to the accounts of the trust and is not the personal information of Smt. V. Sundarmabal. At the same time, we note the submission made during the proceedings that there is a litigation between the trustees. Therefore, before taking a final decision in this matter, we would like to give an opportunity to Smt. V. Sundarmabal to make her submissions, if any.
February, 2016 at 10.00 th Accordingly, this matter is adjourned to be heard again on 29 a.m. through videoconferencing. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this interim order, immediately on its receipt, to Smt. V. Sundarmabal by registered post, informing her that in case she wishes to make any submissions in the matter, she should be present at the next hearing on 29.2.2016. The venue for appearance of the Appellant, the Respondents and Smt. V. Sundarmabal for the hearing on 29.2.2016 shall be as follows: District Informatics Officer, Collectorate, 32 Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600001 The Contact OfficerMs. Jayashree Hariharan, ScientistE & Contact No. is 04425264205 Hearing on 7.3.2016
5. The matter came up again today instead of 29.2.2016. In response to our query, Dr. B. N. Viswanathan stated that Smt. Sundarmabal had received a copy of our interim order dated 6.1.2016 from the Respondent Bank. However, he did not make any submission against our primafacie finding in paragraph 4 of the above interim order that the information sought at points No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application dated 23.5.2014 could not be denied to the Appellant, Shri S. Arunachalam, as it related to the accounts of the Trust and was not the personal information of Smt. V. Sundarmabal. Instead, he alleged certain irregularities in the functioning of the Trust and stated that Smt. Sundarmabal continues to be a trustee of the Trust.
6. In response to our query, the Respondents again confirmed that the Appellant is the TrusteeSecretary of the Trust and the authorized signatory of its accounts. Therefore, as stated in paragraph 4 above, he cannot be denied the information sought at points No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application. Accordingly, we do not agree with the decision of the CPIO, endorsed by the FAA, to deny this information under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
7. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information, sought at points No. 1 and 2 of the RTI application dated 23.5.2014. The information should be provided free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
8. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Copy to: Smt. V. Sundarambal,
70/8, Rameswaram Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600017
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar