K Sridaran vs Indian Bank on 25 April, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

K Sridaran vs Indian Bank on 25 April, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 28.11.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 29.07.2019 and first appeal dated 22.09.2019:-

 "Appellant along with brother Mr. K Guruprasath, who is also an employee at his company had visited Indian Bank branches at Kollidam, Mayiladuthurai and Alangudi of Tiruvarur Zone on 18th May 2019 for site inspection and to take measurements for final bill certifications of interior, furnishing and electrical works carried out recently. They need the CCTV footage, given below the approximate time at which they were present at the said branches:-

Page 1 of 4

(i) Kollidam Branch (Between 2:45pm and 3:45pm approximate)

(ii) Mayiladuthrurai (Srinivasapuram Branch) (Between 4:30pm and 5:30pm approximate)

(iii) Alangudi Branch (Between 8:00pm and 8:45pm approximate)"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Chennai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.08.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 22.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 19.10.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 28.11.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 28.11.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. 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 29.08.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"In this regard, we inform you that, the CCTV footage from the above said branches are not available. However, our Kollidam branch informed that, Mr. Sridharan and Mr. K.Guru prasath have visited the branch on 18.05.2019 around 2 pm for site inspection and to take measurements. Our Srinivasapuram also informed that Mr. Sridharan and Mr. K. Guru Prasath have visited the branch on 18.05.2019 around 5:30 pm for site inspection. "

The FAA vide order dated 19.10.2019 disposed of the first appeal and upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kannan, Asstt. General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 2 of 4

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that his neighbour at Trichy had raised false allegations against him that he had allegedly assaulted his neighbour whereas he had visited bank Branch at Kollidam on 18.05.2019. He further stated that a complaint was lodged against him at Trichy local police station and the information was crucial in order to prove his alibi, i.e. the CCTV footage of the bank premises.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant i.e. CCTV footage was preserved for 90 days and due to expiration of the retention period, the information could not be furnished to him.

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 29.08.2019. It may be noted that the respondent contended that the CCTV footage was not available. However, they also confirmed in their reply dated 29.08.2019 that the appellant and his brother Shri K. Guruprasath had visited the Branch on 18.05.2019 for site inspection and to take measurements. Therefore, they had already provided the requisite information i.e. the fact of his presence on 18.05.2019 in writing. That being so, the respondent authorities may not be compelled to turn into investigating authorities and disclose information for personal disputes and benefits. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. 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: 25.04.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

Page 3 of 4

CPIO : INDIAN BANK 254-260 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-600014 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INDIAN BANK 254-260 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-600014 SH. K SRIDARAN SRISHTI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission