Central Information Commission
G Billy Graham vs Union Bank Of India on 30 July, 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/UBIND/A/2024/110231
G Billy Graham ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank Of India,
Chennai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
FA : 03.01.2024 &
RTI : 03.11.2023 SA : 05.03.2024
10.01.2024
CPIO : 23.11.2023;
FAO : 03.02.2024 Hearing : 12.06.2025
03.01.2024; 08.02.2024
Date of Decision: 30.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"During the month of December 2006, Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch took over (subrogated) the entire loan of Rs.2.36 crores of VEEU Associates Private Ltd along with 11 property the title deeds given as Collateral. Out of 11 properties, the title deed of one property belonging to one Mr. B. Ravishankar (Ex-Officer of Union Bank of India) was never handed over to Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch. B. Page 1 of 5 Ravishankar being an Ex-Officer of Union Bank of India, with his influence got his title deed clandestinely released from Union Bank of India, Mylapore, itself......
1. Please furnish me the name of the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India at No:61, PS Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 served on 28-12-2006 and his current office address with designation/ whereabouts."
2. Having not received the information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 03.01.2024 alleging as under:
"The Central Public Information Officer, 0/0 THE General Manager, Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 139 Broadway, Chennai -600 001 by way of a letter dated 23-11-2023 bearing No: RO (CHN-North-OCPIO-RTI-0138/23-24 have forwarded my Application under section 6 (1) of the under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 03-11-2023 to the Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank of India, Chennai-South, No:38 & 39, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14.Even though 40 days have passed, the Central Public Information Officer did not reply to my Application. Hence this First Appeal."
3. Subsequently, the Appellant filed another First Appeal on 10.01.2024 stating inter alia as under:
"Hence I filed a First Appeal on 03-01-2024 to the First Appellate Authority, 0/0 THE General Manager, Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 139 Broadway, Chennai -600 001.Thereafter, immediately on receipt of my above Appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 03-01-2024.the Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank of India, Chennai-South, No:38 & 39, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 have sent me a reply dated 03-01-2024 which was received by me on 05-01-2024. This belated reply of the Central Public Information Officer has necessitated me to file a Revised First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority today. The Central Public Information Officer has declined to furnish the information sought by me under some false pretext knowing fully well that his reply is contrary to law, arbitrary and illegal."Page 2 of 5
4. The FAA vide order dated 03.02.2024 observed as under:
"You have preferred an initial appeal dt.03/01/2024 on the ground that CPIO, RO-Whites Road had not provided any reply to your RTI Application. However, on receipt of the RTI reply from the CPIO, you filed the 'Revised First Appeal' dt. 10/01/2024.
In this regard, I have considered your Appeal, gone through the RTI Application dt. 03/11/2023, perused the reply given by the CPIO, and examined the grounds raised in appeal and observe as follows:-
You have sought for the 'name of the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India at No.61, PS Sivasamy Salai, Mylapore Chennai- 600 004 served on 28/12/2006 and his current office address with designation/whereabouts'. The CPIO had not provided the information for it is exempted under Section 8(1) (g), (h) & (1) of the RTI Act. It is your contention in Appeal that information sought by you is not exempted under Section 8(1)
(g). (h) & (i). Now, the issue before me is whether the information sought for in the RTI Application is eligible for disclosure to the Applicant/appellant.
With regard to the first part of your query on the name of the Chief Manger who served in the Branch on 28/12/2006, I am of the opinion that applicant /appellant is asking for the name of a public servant who held the public office on a particular date. Even otherwise, the names of the public servant will also be displayed in the office name boards as well. Therefore, I am unable to accept the stand taken by the CPIO that the said information is exempted under Section 8 (1). Hence, I direct the CPIO, Regional Office Whites Road to provide the name of the Chief Manager who served in the Branch on 28/12/2006, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this disposal order.
With regard to the 2nd part of the query seeking current office address and designation of the Chief Manager, the CPIO may consider and provide the information only if, the same is available and held in the custody it control of the CPIO, RO-Chennai South.
Page 3 of 5Further, I observe that the RTI appellant has sought for some additional information from the First Appellate Authority, which was not part of the original RTI application. In this regard I would like to advise that the RTI Applicant cannot expand the scope of the RTI Application in the appellate stage. The party may file a fresh application, if he so desires."
5. In compliance with the FAA's order, the CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.02.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:
(i) "Mr. Govidrajan L was the then Chief Manager.
(ii) The information is not available with the CPIO."
6. Aggrieved with the response received from the CPIO and urging for the disclsure , the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.03.2024.
7. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Jayaraj, DGM & CPIO along with Rohan Chatterjee, Law Officer attended the hearing through video conference.
8. The Appellant narrated the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application and insisted that the address of the then Chief Manager be provided.
9. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and submitted that the averred Chief Manager had already retired in the year 2012 and no such current office address is found in their records.
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the FAA has adequately facilitated the Appellant with the information provided by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, it is observed that the insistence of the Appellant to provide him with unavailable information is rather unreasonable and lacks any tenacity.
11. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 30.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Union Bank Of India, CPIO, Regional Office :
Chennai-South, No-39, Whites Road, Thousand Lights (Opp. To Sathyam Theatre), Chennai-600014 2 G Billy Graham Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)