Nellore Raghunath Chari vs Andhra Bank on 11 August, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nellore Raghunath Chari vs Andhra Bank on 11 August, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated Nil include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 28.03.2018 and first appeal dated 07.05.2018:-

Page 1 of 6

(i) The respondent's letters of recommendation and / or proposal to the Head Office and/or Competent Authority in connection with the OTS Proposal of Rs. 31 Lakhs given by the appellant.

(ii) File noting, other calculations, papers, Inter Office Memorandums and other relevant papers in connection with the OTS Proposal of Rs. 31lakhs.

(iii) The respondent's letters of recommendation and / or proposal to the Head Office and/or Competent Authority in connection with the improved OTS Proposal of Rs. 41lakhs given by us.

(iv) File noting, other calculations, papers, Inter Office Memorandums and other relevant papers in connection with the improved OTS Proposal of Rs. 41 Lakh.

(v) Offices involved in making / not approving the decision may also be provided.

(vi) Detailed calculation sheets which contains, calculations as per CCCS guidelines, Financial Propriety Guidelines and benefit to the bank calculations which justify the settlement and/ or non-approval of the same, should also be provided.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 28.03.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Ahmedabad, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 24.04.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 7.5.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 15.5.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated nil before this Commission which is under consideration.

Page 2 of 6

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.04.2018 replied that only a citizen of India could seek the information under the RTI Act and the proprietary firm was not a citizen of India, hence, the information sought could not be given to the appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 15.05.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant's son, Shri Venkat Chari and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Satyaranjan Nanda, Asstt. General Manager, Union Bank of India, (formerly Andhra Bank), Ahmedabad attended the hearing through audio conference. 5.1. The representative of the appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was denied by the respondent on the flimsy and illegal grounds. He further submitted that the appellant wanted to know the circumstances, logic and reasoning which led the respondent bank for not accepting the OTS proposal made by the appellant in the capacity of sole proprietor firm, M/s Shree Ranganatha Exports. He argued that the appellant was directly related to the sole proprietor of the said firm and the information sought did not fall under any exemption given the RTI Act 5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought by the appellant on behalf of the firm and not as an individual capacity. They stated that as per Section 3 of the RTI application only citizen of India could seek information under the RTI Act. They further submitted that letters of recommendation/proposal, file noting, calculation sheet, internal office memorandum, etc., related to OTS proposal of the appellant's firm sent to Ahmedabad Main Branch, were internal documents of the bank, hence, the same could not be disclosed to the appellant.

Page 3 of 6

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that the then CPIO had denied the information stating that the RTI application was filed by the proprietary firm which is not a citizen of India under section 3 of the RTI Act. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the RTI application was filed by the appellant on behalf of the firm M/s Shree Ranganatha Exports and the appellant has clearly written his name and properly signed on it. The Department of Personnel & Training vide Office Memorandum No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 05.10.2009 it was clarified that:

"17. The Act gives the right to information only to the citizen of India. It does not make provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies, etc. which are legal entities/persons, but not citizens. However, if an application is made by an employee or office-bearer of any Corporation, Association, Company, NGO etc., indicating his name and such employee/office-bearer is a citizen of India, information may be supplied to him/her. In such cases, it would be presumed that a citizen has sought information at the address of the Corporation etc."

In view of the above, the Commission feels that the ground taken by the then CPIO that RTI application was not filed by the citizen of India is inappropriate and the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. Further, it is noted that the information sought by the appellant related to various documents on the basis of which proposal for OTS of his proprietorship firm was rejected by the respondent without claiming any exemption as mentioned in section 8 of the RTI Act. They simply stated that information sought was their internal documents which are not a proper ground for denial of information under the RTI Act. This may not be out of place to mention that the objective of the RTI is to bring accountability and transparency in the functioning of the public authority. Hence, the respondent is directed to provide a copy of OTS proposal sent to their Ahmedabad Main Branch along with Page 4 of 6 file noting in respect of the loan account in question after redacting the name of the officers concerned, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 10.08.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

UNION BANK OF INDIA (formerly ANDHRA BANK) ZONAL OFFICE AHMEDABAD, ONYX-II, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR PALDI BUS STAND, PALDI, AHMEDABAD - 380007 THE F.A.A, UNION BANK OF INDIA (formerly ANDHRA BANK) LEGAL DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, DR PATTABHI BHAVAN, 5-9-11, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD - 500004 NELLORE RAGHUNATH CHARI Page 5 of 6 Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission