S Soundararajan vs Indian Bank on 28 August, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

S Soundararajan vs Indian Bank on 28 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 06.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 26.04.2018 and first appeal dated 08.06.2018:-

(1) The details of number of PMEGP project loan sanctioned by Chennai South Zone Banks 01-01-2016 onwards.

(2) How many units are running as on date?

(3) How many units are closed as on date?

Page 1 of 4

(4) Whether the units are closed by the borrower due to inspection by the bank please furnish the details.

(5) Whether the borrower has come forward to close the accounts if so details there of (6) Number of units established successfully out of the PMEGP scheme loan in the district of Cuddalore, Vilupuram, Tiruvannamalai and Kachipuram (7) Provide the address of the successful units along with details of nature of units viz. manufacturing or service oriented.

(8) Whether inspection if any was conducted at the zonal office level to this Units, furnish the details of unit visited date of inspection, designation of officer (9) If any defect was noticed during inspection whether any attempt was made to revive the unit or advised the owner to close the unit by remitting the loan amount in full. Furnish the details of such units.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 26.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Corporate Office, Royapettah, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.05.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 08.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.07.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 06.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 06.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 of 4

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.05.2018 gave point-wise reply to the RTI application. The FAA vide order dated 04.07.2018 agreed with the views take by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Tamil Selvam, CPIO, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through the audio conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and misleading. He stated that information sought on point nos. 2 to 5 and 7 of the RTI application had not been provided so far. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the complete information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 06.05.2018. They further submitted that information sought on point nos. 2 to 5 of the RTI application was related to the details of units to whom loan was sanctioned under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP). They informed that they did not maintain the records regarding number of units were running or closed, whether units were closed by the borrower due to inspection by banks etc. Hence, they replied accordingly to the appellant within the time frame. They further stated that address of the successful units as sought on point no. 7 of the RTI application was denied being exempted under 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, observes that due reply has been given by the respondent vide letters dated 06.05.2018 and 04.07.2018. Further, the information sought on point nos. 2. to 5 of the RTI application was not maintained by the respondent bank and they were not under an obligation to provide information which was not under their custody. The Commission observes that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 04.12.2014 in case of The Registrar, Supreme Court of India vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 6634/2011] has made the following observations:

Page 3 of 4

"11. Insofar as the question of disclosing information that is not available with the public authority is concerned, the law is now well settled that the Act does not enjoin a public authority to create, collect or collate information that is not available with it. There is no obligation on a public authority to process any information in order to create further information as is sought by an applicant......."

In view of the above, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. 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: 27.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy ( आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक ) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. INDIAN BANK CORPORATE OFFICE, 254 260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600014 THE F.A.A, INDIAN BANK, CORPORATE OFFICE, 254 260, AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600014 S SOUNDARARAJAN Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission