CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001812/15260
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001812
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P. Mahalingam,
21 Lakshmipuram Main Road,
Velecherry,
Chennai-600042.
Respondent Mr. T. Chanderashekharan
PIO & AGM
Indian Bank, Head office,
66, Rajaji Salai
Chennai - 600001
RTI application filed on : 06-03-2011
PIO replied on : 06-04-2011
First Appeal filed on : 15-04-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 18-05-2011
Second Appeal received on : 01-07-2011
Information Sought:
i. Whether any Mortgage is created either by P. Mahalingam or by my wife M. Jagatjeeswaro on
respect of immovable property satiated at 111 Kottivakkam Village, Tambaram taluk, Kanchipuram
Dist, Kottiovakkam Kuppam Rd, Chennai-41 comprised in S. No. 231/1D Part measuring an Extent of
1750 sft for their respective loan of secured OD of Rs 7.5 lacs and unsecured OD of Rs. 9.00 lacs? If
so
ii. What is the date of deposit of title deeds?
iii. What is the date of equitable mortgage?
Iv What are the documents deposited ie Schedule A duly Signed by me/her
v. What is the mortgage number and who has signed The Mortgage Register
vi Any Legal Opinion is obtained
vii Any Valuation Report is obtained.
viii. Copy of Letter Evidencing Deposit of Title deeds.
The PIO reply:
The proceedings initiated by you (SA No. 110/2009 on the file of DRT-III Chennai) bank has
submitted the information to the Court.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
That the RTI Officer did not furnish the exact information to the Appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"PIO vide his reply ref. no. HO: CSC: RTI: 1942: 2010-11L98 dated 06.04.2011 informed that Bank
had furnished the information to the court in the proceedings initiated by the appellant in SA No.
110/2009 on the file of DRT III, Chennai and disposed of the RTI application."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
NO information had been provided by the PIO and unsatisfactory order was given by the FAA.
Page 1 of 2
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. P. Mahalingam on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
Respondent: Mr. T. Chanderashekharan, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The respondent states that he has refused to give the information since the information should be
available with the Appellant. Under the RTI Act if information is held by the Public Authority it has to be
provided if it is not exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Denial of information which is held by the
Public Authority can only be done as per the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Even if the
information is exempt under Section 8(1), Section 8(2) mandates that if there is larger public interest in
disclosure of information it should be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per available records
to the Appellant before 10 November 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (vd)
Page 2 of 2