Central Information Commission
J Paramanandam vs Cbi on 10 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के य सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ल , New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/133743
J Paramanandam ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, RTI CELL,
3RD FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NO. 26,
HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI-600006, TAMILNADU. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29/03/2023
Date of Decision : 29/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 04/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 04/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 13/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 08/07/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking the following information:1
"Sub: Application for seeking information under section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005 -- Reg.
Ref: 1. The complaint dated 10.02.2021 filed by Mr.J.Paramanandam, Prop. Of M/s. Anand Agency.
2. Letter No.C6/CO/0002/2021/CBI/ACB/CHEN/202/2022 Dt. 28.01.2022 Issued by CBI-ACB, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai-6.
I am seeking the information about the complaint dated 10.02.2021 filed by Mr.J.Paramanandam, Prop. Of M/s. Anand Agency against the officials of the Indian Bank, Chennai and please furnish the same at the earliest. I am remitting the requisite fees in form of Postal Order bearing No.43F 288762 Dated 22/02/2022 for Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten Only) and also request you to indicate, if any further fee required for the information provided.
1. Kindly give dates on which you conducted investigation with the officials of Indian Bank.
2. Was there any summon issued to the officials of Indian Bank.
3. Kindly give the list of the officials of Indian Bank who appeared for enquiry.
4. Was there any written statements recorded from the officials of Indian Bank.
5. Who are all the witnesses called for enquiry?
6. Was there any documents submitted by the Indian Bank.
7. Was there any spot inspection and enquiry made from the Indian Bank.
8. What are all the Est of the documents in support to Status Report produced by the Indian Bank?
9. Did you issue any summon to the complaint.
10. Was the complainant called for enquiry?
11.Kindly give the date on which investigation made from the complainant.
12. Was there any written statements recorded from the complainant.
13. Was there any spot inspection and enquiry made from the complainant."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.03.2022 stated as under:
"With reference to your two identical RTI applications dated 22.02.2022 (one addressed to the CPIO, CBI, ACB, Chennai and the other addressed to the O/o.Jt. Director, CBI, Chennai Zone) received in CBI ACB, Chennai on 24.02.2022, it is informed that your complaint dated 10.02.2021 was taken up for scrutiny. On the basis of scrutiny conducted, a status report was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Crl.OP No.16441/2021 filed by M/s.Anand Agency, Sole 2 Proprietorship firm, represented by its Proprietor Shri J.Paramanandam, the present RTI applicant.
The information requested are related to the process of conducting scrutiny which could not be revealed through RTI application as it is related to functioning of CBI. Central Bureau of Investigation is one of the exempt organizations specified in the second schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore as per Sec.24 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the Act will not be applicable to such Intelligence and Security organizations."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 13.04.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating inter alia as under the factual background of the information sought for in the RTI Application as under:
"The Appellant sought for an CBI investigation against officials of the Indian Bank, Chennai namely Mr. Gajapathirajan, then General Manager, Mr. Dahodwala, then Assistant General Manager, Mr. Adhikesavan, then Chief Manager, Mr. Ramesh, who had formed a car or selling the secured assets as security by the innocent., gullible borrowers and conspired to sell the same, much below the market rate and pocketed the balance sale proceeds thereby cheating the borrowers and also the public exchequer. The officials of Indian Bank named above have committed offences of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC, criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 405 of IPC and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which are cognizable offences.
3. Hence the Appellant submitted a complaint dated 10.02.2021 to the CBI, Chennai requesting them to register a Preliminary Case (PE) as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP reported in 2014(2) SCC I, against the officials of Indian bank namely Mr. Gajapathirajan, then General Manager, Mr. Dahodwala, then Assistant General Manager, Mr. Adhikesavan, then Chief Manager, Mr. Ramesh, then. Chief Manager and other officials of the Indian Bank, ARMB Branch, Chennai and take suitable action against them.
4. Since no action was taken by CBI on the Complaint submitted by the Appellant, the Appellant was constrained to file a petition under Section 482 of CrPC in Crl. O.P. No.16441 of 2021 before the Madras High Court. In the above case, CBI filed a status report dated 28-01-2022 before the Madras High Court stating that no case was made out against the Officials of Indian Bank for offences 3 under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and closed investigation in the Complaint dated 10-02-2021 submitted by the Appellant. Thereafter the Madras High Court by order dated 10-02- 2022 dismissed Crl. O.P. N0.16441 of 2021 filed by the Appellant.
5. The Appellant filed the Complaint dated 10-02-2021 with CBI, Chennai against the officials of Indian Bank levelling corruption charges as against them. However, the Appellant was not examined by CBI and his statement was not recorded. Without conducting any investigation, CBI had closed the Appellant's complaint."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present and assisted by his advocate.
Respondent: A J Ramalingam, SP & Rep. of CPIO present through video conference.
The Advocate of the Appellant stated that the denial of the information is inappropriate as the matter pertains to allegations of corruption as can be evinced from the contents of the grounds of Second Appeal and the series of precedents quoted therein. He further submitted that the CBI has closed the complaint of corruption but have not provided any details of an investigation conducted in the matter or summoned any witnesses or called the Appellant for any hearing, hence it is difficult to accept the closure of the complaint, based on which the Madras High Court has also dismissed their petition.
The CPIO reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant and further submitted that based on the status report filed by the CBI, since the Hon'ble Madras High Court had held that the Appellant's request for CBI investigation cannot be granted and no PE ought to be registered, the question of 'investigation' or records related thereto as referred to in the RTI Application does not arise.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that through the queries raised in the RTI Application, the Appellant has merely conjectured the conduct of an investigation and sought for confirmation of speculative statements under the garb of seeking for information. The instant RTI queries and the instant appeal appear to be a mere way of channelising the Appellant's angst 4 against or vindicating the fact that CBI did not investigate into the averred complaint of the Appellant alleging corruption by certain Indian Bank officials, while the mandate of Section 2(f) or the general mandate of RTI Act does not envisage realisation of such purposes. The said observation is also relevant when we refer to the "allegation of corruption" being harped upon by the Appellant through the length and breadth of the text of the instant Second Appeal to urge that the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act is applicable here.
For better understanding of the mandate of the RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.." In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 5 Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied 6 Now, the Commission deems it further appropriate to refer to certain portions of the averred Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment in Crl. O.P. No.16441 of 2021 (copy of which was enclosed with the Second Appeal) as under:
"4. The status report filed by CBI dated 28.01.2022 deals with a issue involved in this case, extensively, It is seen from the status report that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner for non-payment of loan. The title deed of Sendamangalam property was released to Ramadoss Rao, pursuant to the sale agreement between the borrower and Ramadoss Rao and on the basis of decree, for specific performance passed in A.S.No.708 of 2008 and A.S.No.946 of 2009 and WP No.23405 of 2009 and M P Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2009. There are also orders passed in Review Petition Nos. 809 to 813 of 2011 an 10.03.2011 in Civil Appeal Nos.9821 -9822, 9824 to 9825 & 9826 of 2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and order dated 14.12.2011 passed in I.A. No.1507/2011 in RA.No.28 of 2011 by DRAT, Chennai.
5. It is also seen that the issue or handing over the tide deeds pertaining the Sendamangalam property had attained finality by higher Judicial authority i.e., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as per the decision in the year 2011 itself. It is also evident from status report that from the scrutiny of the documents collected and verification conducted, reveal that there is no lapse/misconduct on the part of the bank official. Allegation of releasing the title documents pertaining to Sendamangalam property to Ramadoss Rao was done in obedience to the orders of the hon'ble Courts, including the order of this Court Sendamangalam property was one of the property offered as collateral securities by the petitioner and it was appropriated for the failure of the petitioner in repaying the loan amount. Therefore, there is no ground for prosecuting the bank officials for the alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating etc.
6. Thus, consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondents, the records and also status report, shows that the petitioner has mortgaged 6 items of properties and he was not able to repay the loan amount despite giving opportunities for settling the loan amount. One time settlement was offered, A sale agreement was executed with Ramadoss Rao and he enforced the sale agreement by filing a suit for specific performance and got a decree in his favour. There are other litigations and the matter went up to Hon'ble Supreme Court. The materials placed before this Court clearly shows that the Bank authority had acted in accordance with law only with a view to recover the loan due to the bank. Therefore, the respondents rightly concluded that there is no case made out for 7 proceeding against the bank officials for alleged offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating etc. The respondents communicated to the petitioner, almost the result of the enquiry through the letter dated 28.01.2022.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner's requests for direction to the respondents to take on record a complaint dated 10.02.2021 filed by the petitioner and register as preliminary case against the Indian Bank officials namely Mr.Gajapathirajan, then General Manager, 7virDahodwala, then Assistant General Manager, Mr.Adhikesavan, then Chief Manager, Mr.Rarnesh, then Chief Manager and other officials of the Indian Bank, ARMB Branch, Chennai cannot be granted..."
In the above backdrop, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the "allegation of corruption" being insisted upon by the Appellant with reference to Section 24 of the RTI Act is erroneous and misplaced leaving no scope of any further discussion in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहा न)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ#भ मा%णत स&या'पत त)
(C.A. Joseph)
Dy. Registrar
011-26179548/ [email protected]
सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक
दनांक /
8