Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/ Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19) 18th January 2016

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. Right to Information Act 2005 Under Section (19) Date of first hearing : 18th January 2016 Date of first order : 18th January 2016 Date of second hearing : 7 th March 2016 Date of final order : 7 th March 2016 Name of the Appellant : Smt. V. Sundarambal, Life Trustee, Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sanathana Dharma Education & Health Trust (Regd.), 70/8, Rameswaram Road, T. Nagar, Chennai Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Central Public Information Officer, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, , Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai RTI Application filed on : 05/02/2014 CPIO replied on : 07/03/2014 First Appeal filed on : 10/03/2014 First Appellate Authority order on : 22/04/ nd Appeal received on : 05/09/2014 Attendance during the hearing on

2 The Appellant was represented by her husband, Shri B.N. Viswanathan, who was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai with a written authorization from the Appellant. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri K. Deepak Senthil, Senior Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai. Attendance during the hearing on The Appellant was represented by her husband, Shri B.N. Viswanathan, who was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai with a written authorization from her. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri K. Deepak Senthil, Senior Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Chennai. Shri Shiv Shankar was present on behalf of Shri S. Arunachalam (third party) at the NIC Studio, Chennai with a written authorization from Shri Arunachalam. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on eight points regarding certain accounts held in the name of Sri Kanchi

3 Kamakoti Sanathana Education and Health Trust, came up today. Not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondents, the Appellant has filed an appeal to the Commission, praying for direction to the Respondents to provide some additional information mentioned therein. Hearing on In the above context, we note that an appeal by Shri S. Arunachalam, seeking copies of the notices received from or issued on behalf of Smt. V. Sundarmabal or Dr. B. N. Viswanathan with regard to the above accounts, was considered on and an interim order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/ was issued the same day. In the above order, the matter was adjourned to be heard again on and the Respondents were asked to inform Smt. V. Sundarmabal to be present for the above hearing, in case she wished to make any submissions. 3. In view of the foregoing, both these cases would now be heard on 7 th March, 2016 at a.m. through video conferencing. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this interim order to Shri S. Arunachalam asking him to be present for the hearing on instead of , in case he wishes to make any submissions in this matter. The venue for appearance for the Appellant, the Respondents and Shri S. Arunachalam for

4 the hearing on shall be the same as the one mentioned in our order dated The Registry is directed to link this matter with the one on File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/ Hearing on The matter came up again today. Speaking on behalf of the Appellant, Dr. B.N. Viswanathan stated that the Appellant is a founder trustee of the above mentioned Trust and was elected its Secretary on , but was illegally removed from that position on She challenged her removal as Secretary and her case was upheld by a lower court and a District Court in 2010 and 2011 respectively. The matter went before the High Court and the case was closed in 2013, with the consent of both the parties, on the ground that the tenure of Secretary was for a period of five years and that period was over by then. Dr. B.N. Viswanathan further submitted that notwithstanding the above, Smt. V. Sundarmabal continues to be a trustee. Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sanathana Education and Health Trust is a public charitable trust and as a trustee, Smt. V. Sundarmabal is responsible for all its activities. Therefore, she is entitled to get the information sought by her regarding the bank accounts of the trust. Dr. Viswanathan alleged certain irregularities on the part of the trustees who, he claimed, had removed Smt. V. Sundarmabal as Secretary of the trust to take over the trust illegally. He also

5 stated that Smt. V. Sundarmbal was a guarantor of a loan of Rs crores given by the Respondent Bank to the trust. In response to our query, he stated that the Appellant did not submit to the bank a resolution of the trust, authorizing her to get the information concerning its accounts. 5. Speaking on behalf of Shri S. Arunachalam, Shri Shiv Shankar stated that the information sought by the Appellant regarding the dealings of the trust with the bank concerning its accounts is an internal matter of the trust. He further submitted that while the Appellant can apply to the Trust for such information, she is not entitled to get it from the bank. He also stated that the trust has passed a resolution asking the bank not to provide any information to her. He claimed that out of the thirty seven meetings of the trust held from to , Smt. V. Sundarmabal did not attend thirty five meetings. Dr. B. N. Viswanathan stated that the Appellant has kept the courts concerned informed regarding her not attending certain meetings of the trust. In response to our query, Shri Shiv Shankar did not dispute the continuation of the Appellant as a trustee. 6. In response to our query, the representative of the Respondents confirmed that Shri S. Arunachalam is the Trustee Secretary and the authorised signatory of the accounts of the trust. He also informed us that the loan account of Rs crores, for which the Appellant had given a guarantee, was closed on

6 7. We have considered the records and the submissions made by the three parties. It is noted that a good deal of information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application dated was provided by the CPIO vide his letter dated and the FAA vide his letter dated However, one of the points in the RTI application was regarding copies of all communications to and from the trust and the trustees from 1 st April 2011 to date. In her appeal to the Commission, the Appellant has sought the following further information: i) The names and address of the Trustees as informed by the Trust Board to the bank the copy of which is with the Indian Bank ii) The Assets and Liabilities Statements of all the Trustees as submitted to the Bank by the Secretary of the Trust Board the copy of which is with the Bank as shown in the letter sent iii) The audited balance sheet for the year iv) The action taken by the Bank on the application by the Trustee Secretary that the Trust is a Private Trust (this is written in hand on the Application Form) v) Whether the Director of Collegiate Education had given extension for pledging the property beyond If so when the order was given

7 vi) Whether the Trust Board had resolved and reported that all the Trustees are agreeable to execute personal guarantee for the loan applied for sanctioned loan and whether personal properties of the trustees can be given as securities and the amount of security value for the same vide Indian Bank Letter IB/TVM/LOANS/ dated especially at which meeting (containing the date and the members attended). 8. The fact of the Appellant having been elected Secretary of the Trust in September 2007 is not relevant to the case before us. Further, the Commission is not competent to address the grievances of the Appellant, regarding her removal as Secretary and alleged irregularities by members of the trust, under the RTI Act. The guarantee given by the Appellant for the loan account of Rs crores is also not germane to this issue, particularly since the loan account has been settled. All the parties agree that the Appellant continues to be a trustee. However, she is not the authorised signatory in respect of the accounts of the trust with the bank. She, therefore, needs an authorization from the Trust in the form of a resolution, authorizing her to get the information sought by her regarding the accounts of the Trust and the dealings of the Trust with the bank concerning the same. She has not provided such a resolution to the bank. On the

8 contrary, the Trust has passed a resolution asking the bank not to provide any information to her. In view of the foregoing, she is not authorised to receive the information sought by her, as it is covered by the fiduciary relationship of the bank with its customer and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure of this information to her. Her allegations regarding irregularities in the functioning of the Trust cannot become the ground of larger public interest. As noted above, a good deal of information was provided to her by the bank in response to the RTI application However, in view of what is stated above, we would refrain from ordering disclosure of any further information by the Respondents to the Appellant. 9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. 10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Copy to: Shri S. Arunachalam, Trustee Secretary, C/o. Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sanathana Dharma Education & Health Trust (Reg.),

9 No 2, Sundaram Street, Arumuga Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar