Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 3356
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Anandi Ramalingam, IC
Anitha Amarnath – Appellant
Versus
CPIO: Canara Bank, Chennai – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/CANBK/A/2024/128987
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Amarnath
For the Respondents: Tadi Ramakrishna
The Right to Information Act mandates accountability, and denial of information cannot be based solely on pending litigation.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(b), 8(1)(j), and 10 - Appeal against denial of information - Appellant sought details related to a D&A case against Canara Bank and received no response initially - FAA stated information withheld due to ongoing litigation, not permitted under RTI - Commission ordered CPIO to provide details point-wise and address original failure to respond, warning against arbitrary disposal of appeals. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Accountability of Public Authorities - The commission found CPIO's handling of the RTI request lacking, citing a lack of proper replies and accountability for failure to act. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI request concerning details of a legal case involving Canara Bank, but received no response, leading to this Second Appeal. The CPIO claimed previous information was provided without proof.
Findings of Court:
The Commission directed the CPIO to furnish the required information and provide an explanation for failures in the handling of the RTI request. The denial of requested information was found to be erroneous.
Issues: Whether the denial of requested information was justified under ongoing litigation, and the failure of the CPIO to comply with the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commission emphasized that ongoing litigation is not a valid ground to deny information under the RTI Act unless expressly forbidden; CPIO's accountability in responding appropriately to RTI requests is critical.
Result: The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rti application seeking information on d&a case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cpio's failure to provide information raises accountability issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. denial of information based on pending litigation is not valid under rti. (Para 7) |
| 4. commission directed proper information provision and identifying cpio's accountability. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decisions on the appeal. (Para 9) |
Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated Nil seeking information on the following points:
“Application submitted under RTI Act to furnish the following information with reference to the case D&A versus Canara Bank before Hon'ble High Court at Madras, in CRP. No. 1315 of 2023.
Ref: Account No. ******1845 I am a citizen of India and being the litigant in the above case, I request you to provide the following details and also to provide the copy of the below mentioned documents:
(i) The date and particulars of the confirmation of Sale made to Mr. Sulaiman (ii) The details and the date when the Sale Certificate was issued to Mr. Sulaiman and provide a copy of it.
(iii) The payment made by Mr. Sulaiman on various dates to Canara Bank.
(iv) The OTS Proposal dated 05.07.2022 bearing Reference No. CNRB/RO SOUTH/OTS/D&A/22-235 sent by the Recoveries Section Regional Office Chennai to the DGM-RO-CAC Regional Office Chennai.”
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.05.2024. The FAA vide order dated 29.06.2024 stated as under: - “I have gone through the contents of your Appeal and I would like to inform you that the information sought by you pertains to a matter under consideration of DRAT Chennai.
Since in the subject matter litigation is pending, We are not in a position to share the information unless otherwise directed by the competent court of law.
Hence your instant appeal filed in the matter is disposed of accordingly.”
3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 02.09.2024.
4. The Appellant was represented during the hearing by B. Amarnath through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Tadi Ramakrishna, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The Rep. of the Appellant stated that no information has been provided by the CPIO till date.
6. The Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submissions dated 05.08.2025 stating that- “the previous CPIO had already provided a response in this matter. The current CPIO has also reviewed the issue and would like to state that the information requested by the complainant, Mrs. Anitha Amarnath, has already been made available to her as part of the annexure in the Securitization Application filed by the Bank before DRT - III, Chennai.”
However, upon a query from the Commission for proof of having provided the information, the CPIO submitted that he has assumed charge only recently. The CPIO was therefore asked to place on record the details of the information that is claimed to have been provided to the Appellant immediately after the hearing.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes at the outset that initially no reply was provided to the instant RTI Application by the CPIO and yet without going into this aspect the FAA replied to the RTI query in response to the First Appeal as though he were the CPIO. Despite the omission on the part of the CPIO, the FAA did not bother to assign any accountability to the CPIO and even as a reply to the RTI query was provided, the FAA failed to note that the information was being denied arbitrarily without invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. Further, while the CPIO present during the hearing claimed to have revisited the matter, no effort was made to ensure that atleast at this stage, a reply complying with the provisions of the RTI Act is provided. Moreover, the CPI
