O R D E R

(28.08.2023)

1. The above two appeal (one filed by Shri Dr. Arul Samraj on 04.01.2022 and another filed by J D Chalceydoney Kangaselvi on 11.11.2021) were filed against the CPIO, Bank of Maharashtra, Chennai. The issue raised in both the appeals were identical therefore it was felt desirable to pass common order in both the cases.

1.1 The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 30.01.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 04.01.2022and first appeal dated 17.01.2022:- (i) Provide the information concerning the Pay Order No. ***491 dated

27.10.1999(180***- ******003) issued in favor of Dr. D. Arul Samraj.

1. Details of the transaction.

2. Copy of the property document relied for the release of the said Pay Order.

Details of repayment including capital along with interest and the duration of repayment.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed applications dated 11.11.2021 &04.01.2022under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Maharashtra, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letters dated06.12.2021 &11.01.2022 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeals dated 09.12.2021 &17.01.2022. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide orders dated 27.12.2021 & 20.01.2022 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated05.01.2022 & 30.01.2022 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 05.01.2022 & 30.01.2022 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 dated06.12.2021 &11.01.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “We are not in a position to provide you the information as it is related to third party information which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.”

The FAA vide orders dated17.12.2021 & 20.01.2022 upheld the replies of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri P S Sayeeswara Rao, Deputy General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was the person who had received the pay order. He had not sought any third party information and moreover section 11 of the RTI Act was also not invoked. He informed that he had sold his property to the third party who had obtained loan against such property. He wanted to know whether the purchaser of the loan had settled the loan or not.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to third party as the loan account did not belong to him therefore they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that reply given by the respondent was incomplete and evasive. The appellant during the course of hearing submitted that he had sold the property and against which loan was obtained by third party purchaser. He further submitted that the pay order was issued in his name and therefore he wanted to know whether the purchaser had settled the loan or not. The respondent submitted that information sought pertained to one Shri Dr. Arun Samraj (appellant) &Shri D Augusteen Solomon (third party) as both of them were the beneficiary of the aforesaid pay order, therefore, they denied the same under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. However, the appellant submitted that Shri D Augusteen Solomon is his brother and there is no dispute between them. It may be noted that the respondent had not invoked section 11 of the RTI Act. The