CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000563/SG/14675
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000563/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. S. Suresh Kumar,
Mishal Karichiyil
Attingal PO 695101,
Trivandrum, Kerala.
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mohanti, Chief Manager Mr. B. M. Warman
Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager
Indian Overseas Bank,
RTI Cell Law Department,
Central Office, Post Box no. 3765,
Anna Salai, Chennai 60002.
RTI application filed on : 15/07/2010
PIO replied on : 01/11/2010
First Appeal filed on : 22/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 31/12/2010
Information Sought:
The appellant wants information regarding his complaint dated 15/05/2010 by registered post with
AD.
1. Copy of the action taken report or what action the respondent intends to take against all the
accused mentioned in the complaint.
2. Copy of all the documents the respondent has obtained or procured for the purpose of the
investigation in connection with the above referred complaint.
3. The name, designation and address of the officers involved in the investigation and copy of
their individual report regarding the above complaint.
4. Copy of all statements given by the people involved in the above referred complaint before the
concerned investigation officer.
5. Copy of all the findings of the bank legal officer and the documents in connection with the
investigation submitted by the present branch manager before the investigation team.
6. The name and permanent residential address of the Managers of IOB, Keezhattingal branch
who are involved in the complaint for the year 2008-2010
7. The details and assets declared by the Managers who served in the IOB Keezhattingal branch
from 2008 January to 2009 December, especially the one who is involved in the above
complaint.
8. Name of the authority or department who is bound to take legal action (Civil and Criminal)
against the accused mentioned in the complaint, if found guilty.
9. Specify the minimum or maximum time required to complete and investigation of such
complaints.
10. Copy of the Functus Officio report and Notebook/docket sheet of the investigation officer of
the complaint.
REPLY OF THE PIO:
The PIO replied that the issues regarding which the information has been asked, is in dispute and is
pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No. 28447 filed by Sri. Shahjahan
and Sri. Venkataraman. Therefore, it is not appropriate to adjudicate the entitlement of the Officer
Bearers for the account details either as Authorized signatories or Office Bearers.
The PIO also stated that the Public Authority as an opposite party cannot provide copies of the
documents sought by the Applicant as it involves the interest of the Public Authority. Also the
disclosure of information relating to these issues, would result in impeding the judicial process by way
of slowing down or diverting the process of investigation with prejudice and is there exempted under
Sec 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds for the First Appeal
No information has been provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not enclosed.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information has been received.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mohanti, Chief Manager on behalf of Mr. B. M. Warman, Public Information
Officer & Dy. General Manager on video conference from NIC-Chennai Studio;
The respondent claims that he had not received the RTI application claimed to have been sent
by the Appellant on 15/07/2010. Subsequently when they received the RTI application on 06/10/2010
they replied on 01/11/2010. The respondent claims that since the matter is being adjudicated providing
the information would impede the process of prosecution. It appears from the submission of the
respondent that there is some reasonable ground to believe that the process of prosecution may be
impeded. In view of this the Commission accepts the plea of respondent that the disclosure of the
information is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought is exempt under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
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
19 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)