CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001952/15336
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001952
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh. Dandamraju Dhanumjaya Rao,
Proprietor, Ganesh Industries,
Q No. C-36, 8th Battalion,
A.P.S.P., Kondapur,
Hyderabad - 500084
Respondent : Mr. K.T. Raut,
CPIO & Dy. Zonal Manager
Bank of India
O/o The Manager,
28-2-48 Dasapalla Complex,
Ist Floor, Suryabagh,
Visakhapatnam - 530002
RTI application filed on : 01-11-2010
PIO replied on : 04-12-2010
First Appeal filed on : 01-12-2010
First Appellate Authority order of : Not Ordered
Second Appeal received on : 21-07-2011
Information Sought:-
The appellant wants the information about the following:-
1. The guidelines followed by the Bank while sanctioning the loan of Rs. 20 lakhs.
2. Whether legal audit was conducted in respect of C.C.Account no.220336 of Ganesh Industries or
not? If conducted, copy legal audit report.
3. Central auditor inspection comments pertaining to the loan Account CC. A/C no 220336 for the
years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.
4. Compliance by the Bank in respect of the central auditor inspection comments pertaining to the loan
Account C.C.A/C no 220336 for the years 2003-04,2004-05 and 2005-06.
5. Bank auditor inspection comments pertaining to the loan A/C no 220336 for the years 2003-04,
2004-05 and 2005-06.
6. Compliance of the Bank For the Bank auditor inspection comments pertaining to the loan A/C no.
220336 for the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.
7. Flow of funds statement from the date of sanction in respect of the loan Account no.220336.
8. Particulars / charge sheets of C.B.I case against T.Harinarayna, Deputy Manager, Bank of India,
Kothapet Branch, Guntur, who processed my loan documents pertaining to C.C A/C no.220336.
9. Domestic enquiry report conducted by Bank Vigilance department against the officers of the Bank
R.V.K.Prasad and T.Harinarayna for the deceitful -acts committed in respect of sanction of loan C.C.
A/C no 220336.
Page 1 of 3
PIO's Reply:-
The appellant was provided with the following reply:-
In Reply to 1) -Your query is ambiguous. However, such loans can be considered under many
schemes.
In Reply to 2) -No such practice.
In Reply to 3) -Audit matters are internal affairs of the bank. We could not part with as it falls under
exempted category of section 8(1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act.
In Reply to 4) - same as above.
In Reply to 5) - same as above.
In Reply to 6) - same as above.
In Reply to 7) - Your query is ambiguous.
In Reply to 8) - We are not concerned with the charge sheet filed by CBI. If any.
In Reply to 9) - The information relates to person and disclosure of which has no relationship of any
public activity and would also cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual which fails
under exempted category of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order was passed by the First Appellate Authority.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and no order was passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Sh. Dandamraju Dhanumjaya Rao on Video Conference from NIC Hyderabad
Respondent : Mr. S Kumaravel on behalf of CPIO on Video Conference from NIC Visakhapatnam
The Appellant has sought information regarding his own account with the Bank. The Respondent
claims that the information ahs been sent to the Appellant. The Appellant states that the following
information has not been supplied so far:
1. Copy of his Application for loan in the bank format and the sanction letter. The Respondent
states that there is not application on record in the bank format. The Respondent further sates
that there is no sanction letter available on record.
2. Central auditor inspection comments pertaining to the loan Account CC. A/C no 220336 for
the years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Respondent states that the comments for the
years 2003-04 is not available on record and the same has been communicated to the
Appellant.
The Appellant would like to inspect the relevant records from his file on 15 th November 2011 from
10.30 AM at the Branch office in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and on 16 th November at the Zonal Office at
Visakhapatnam.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Page 2 of 3
The CPIO is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the
Appellant on 15 and 16 November 2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The CPIO will give
attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 200 pages.
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
27 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Page 3 of 3