Nagaraju Neelam vs Union Bank Of India on 31 December, 2021

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Nagaraju Neelam vs Union Bank Of India on 31 December, 2021

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated NIL include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.03.2019 and first appeal dated 20.04.2019:-

(i) To provide the last crop loan details of Mr. Nagaraju Neelam (vide no 06501310003110) and enclose all present copies related to last crop loan i.e. closed on 17-02-2018 (applications and land documents).

(ii) Whether the appellant had submitted KYC on 26-07-2018 or not.

a. Lastly when he has updated KYC and provide the details.

Page 1 of 4

(iii) If the appellant submitted KYC, why the bank are not returned land documents, provide the reasons and attach that supportive by-laws or rules or regulations of Bank to hold land documents.

(iv) To provide electronic evidence i.e. a. CCTV footage (up to KYC submission).

b. Mobile recordings (both video and audio)

(v) To provide the name and age of below mention employees attended on 26.07.2018.

a. RDO.

b. Other women officer.

c. Branch Manager d. One senior officer (who manhandled Mr. Nagaraju Neelam) if you are not identified senior officer please provide all employees details.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.03.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Union Bank of India (Earlier Andhra Bank), Visakhapatnam, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 08.04.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 20.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 19.06.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated NIL before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated NIL 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 08.04.2019 and the same is reproduced as under :-

Page 2 of 4

(i) "We inform you that your crop loan vide account number ***********110 was opened 14.09.2009 and closed on 26.11.2011. There was no crop loan account in your name which was closed on 17.02.2018, as mentioned by you.

(ii) We inform you that you have not submitted KYC on 26.07.2018. The KYC was not updated since 2009.

(iii) We inform you that your crop loans were sanctioned on basis of PAHANI/ADANGAL copy. Hence there is no land document to return.

(iv) We inform you that no CCTV footage was available since it's expired the minimum period for which branches needed to maintain or preserve such footage as per our Bank's guidelines. No mobile recording is done or maintained by branch.

(v) We inform you that we cannot reveal the information's since it relates to personal information/s, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the same is exempted under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 19.06.2019 directed the CPIO to provide names of the employees who were present in Yelamanchili Branch on 26.07.2018 and against other points agreed with the views taken by the CPIO. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 19.06.2019 provided names of the employees who were present in Yelamanchili Branch on 26.07.2018.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Arvind Kumar, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Visakhapatnam, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that reply given by the respondent was incomplete.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 08.04.2019. They Page 3 of 4 further expressed his desire to provide the remaining information and settle the grievances of the appellant. Accordingly, they sought time from the Commission.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent expressed their preparedness to provide the complete information and sought time for that. Accordingly, in view of the assurance given by the respondent, they may revisit the RTI application and revised information be given to the appellant, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these 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: 31.12.2021 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 , REGIONAL OFFICE, 47-7-30/2, MOHAN MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH LANE, DWARKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.-530016 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNIONBANK OF INDIA , REGIONAL OFFICE, 47-7-30/2, MOHAN MANSION, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH LANE, DWARKA NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.-530016 SH. NAGARAJU NEELAM by Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission