Central Information Commission
V. Bhaskara Naidu 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/2024/112629
V. Bhaskara Naidu ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India,
Chittor, AP ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.09.2023 FA : 28.11.2023 SA : 21.03.2024
CPIO : 25.09.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 12.06.2025
Date of Decision: 30.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.09.2023 seeking information as under:
"In Dasarapalli Revenue accounts there is a land in Sy.No. 365/2 Extent Ac. 2. 39 cents. In this the land disputes were arises in between P.Sankaraiah Naidu and to us in respect of the extent Ac. 0.03 cents. On 10-02-2021 we filed a suit in O.S.No. 93 of 2021 on the file of the 2nd AJCJ, Chittoor and still the case is pending. In this the said court granted injunction order to us in I.A.No. 83 of 2021 in respect of extent Ac. 0.03 cents. P.Sankaraiah Naidu also filed a suit on 11-3-2021 in O.S.No. 192 of 2021 on the file of the 2nd AJCJ, Chittoor and the same is also pending. But the said P.Sankaraiah Naidu obtained false crop loan in your bank on 4-11-2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of extent Page 1 of 4 Ac. 2.39 cents. I required the information with regard to the above said loan Application, Loan Account statement with attested copies two sets for the purpose of to take action against him."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought by you is the personal information of P. Sankaraiah, we cannot provide the information as per S.8(i)(j) of RTI Act."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.11.2023. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.03.2024 stating as under:
"In our village P.Sankaraiah Naidu has got land in Sy.No. 365/2 Extent Ac. 2. 39 cents. Out of Ac. 2.39 cents extent Ac. 0.03 cents of land in my possession and enjoyment. On that the disputes were arises for that I have filed a suit in O.S.No. 93 /21 on the file of the 2nd AJCJ, Chittoor, Chittoor for Declaration of Title and also for grant of Injunction in I.A.No. 83 of 21. The same is pending. But, the said P.Sankaraiah Naidu also filed a suit against us for the above said extent Ac. 0.03 cents for delivery of possession and also Declaration of title in O.S.No. 192/21. That also pending. Therefore there is no any right or possession over the extent acere 0.03 cents. Even the said case is pending the said P.Sankaraiah Naidu has created 1-B and Adangal in his favour stating that he has got total land and the same has been submitted before the Union Bank of India, Yadamari and availed a crop loan on 4-11-2022 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. This act is illegal under law. Therefore to lodge a criminal complaint against him I applied to Union Bank Information officer under Right to Information. But they refused my application under sec 8 (1)(j) of Act. But the said section 8(1)(J) will not be applicable to my required information for refusal. Therefore he intentionally under conspiracy sent false information and the same should be in favour of our defendants. Therefore intentionally refused. Aggrieved against the said information I appealed to the Senior Central Page 2 of 4 Information Officer. But so far they have not furnished any information. Therefore I request you to kindly allow this appeal and to take all actions against the Information Officer and Appellate information officer by exercising your power."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Dinesh, Branch Manager & Rep. of CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Appellant struggled to plead his case being frail in his disposition and his inability to converse in English or Hindi, therefore his grounds of second appeal mentioned above has been taken on record.
7. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant wherein the information was denied as being personal to Mr. P. Sankaraiah.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has appropriately denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the Appellant has no tenable grounds to challenge the said reply within the framework of the RTI Act. The contentions of the Appellant are premised on a civil dispute over the averred property and bear no consequence on the mandate of the RTI Act in the facts of the instant case.
9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Copy 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 Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Union Bank of India, CPIO, Regional Office, S. V. University Campus,Tirupathi, Chittoor District, A. P.- 517502 2 V. Bhaskara Naidu Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)