E Jean Prabu vs National Bank For Agriculture And Rural ... on 17 November, 2021

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

E Jean Prabu vs National Bank For Agriculture And Rural ... on 17 November, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 11.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 18.07.2018 and first appeal dated 27.08.2018:-

"Understanding from land documents analysed that Mrs. Maria Gracious Smilin, had built her house in Tuticorin encroaching his common land rights, land area creating forgery documents and not replying to letters sent requesting clarification, staying silent for the past 2.5 months. Further without clarifying Mrs. Smilin and her brother Mr.Romali Terrice Pinto was found to fabricate problems with her mother; brother in la, sister had given criminal police complaint on him for a civil query asked with intention of threatening and Page 1 of 4 diverting the case, also inviting for street quarrels creating mental agony for hi, and his family:

(i) Details on whether the concerned authority has got official fund approval for building the Tuticorin Property. Expecting details on Area, layout, fund and year approved as per official records.

(ii) Details on other properties of the concerned officer.

(iii) Designation and present office address of the official."

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 18.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 16.08.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 26.09.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 11.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 11.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the concerned CPIO violated the RTI rules and denied the information which was required for establishing before the court of law that the Government official had built her property which was suspected to be built without official fund approval, undervalued property to avoid taxes and offences punishable under IPC for his complaint with FIR No 8/2019/South Police Station. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.08.2018 and the same is reproduced as under

:-

(i) "The information sought by you cannot be provided since it is exempted under Section 8(1) (d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005.

Page 2 of 4

(ii) The information sought by you cannot be provided since it is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(iii) The designation and present office address of Smt. Maria Gracious Smilin, AGM, NABARD is furnished below :-

Smt. Maria Gracious Smilin Assistant General Manager C/o NABARD 48 Mahatma Gandhi Road Nungambakkam Chennai 600034 Tamil Nadu"

The FAA vide order dated 26.09.2018 agreed with the view of CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Venkatakrishnan, Chief Manager & CPIO, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Chennai attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had filed a complaint against Mrs. Maria Gracious an employee of the bank who had constructed property encroaching upon his land. Therefore, the employee had violated official rules and he required the information regarding fund approval of her property, and details of her other properties, if any. However, the respondent had denied the information with an intention to protect their official who had adopted illegal means to buy properties.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case and while endorsing their reply dated 16.08.2018 inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought personal information such as details of properties of one of their employees' Mrs. Maria Gracious. The appellant brought out personal dispute by raising allegations without demonstrating any public interest. Therefore, the information was denied under provisions of 8(1) (d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on Page 3 of 4 16.08.2018. The appellant was unable to substantiate his allegations against the official with any documentary evidence and failed to demonstrate any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information. Therefore, the reply given by the respondent is in order and no further intervention is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 15.11.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 48, MAHATAMA GANDHI ROAD, P.B. No. 6074, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 48, MAHATAMA GANDHI ROAD, P.B. No. 6074, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034 SH. E JEAN PRABU Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission