← Library
Madras High CourtWP/14409/2023disposed of with direction

Indian Overseas Bank v. The Chief Information Commissioner

2026-06-08Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:08.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P. No.13914 of 2023 Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, 763, 3rd Floor, Annex building, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 002.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Chief Information Commissioner Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg,Munirka, New Delhi-110 067.

2. M/s. Kissan Fats Limited Hazi Rattan Link Road, Bathinda-151 005.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Second Appeal No.CIC/IOVBK/A/2021/120119 dt. 03.04.2023 and quash the same as being illegal and against the provisions of law For Petitioner : Ms.Sheela Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.T.G. Bhaskar for R2 No appearance for R1 1/5

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the 1st respondent in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2021/120119, this writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the 2nd respondent has submitted an application dated 31.12.2020 under the Right to Information Act seeking copies of the confidential appraisal/process notes prepared internally by the petitioner Bank while considering and sanctioning a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the petitioner Bank, by order dated 16.02.2021, rejected the request. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority, by order dated 03.03.2021, came to the concurrent decision of the CPIO and rejected the appeal.

3. Challenging the aforesaid concurrent findings of the authorities under the RTI Act, the 2nd respondent preferred a Second Appeal before the 1st respondent. By the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner Bank to revisit the RTI application and furnish the information sought by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present writ petition has been filed.

2/5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the disputes between the petitioner Bank and the 2nd respondent have been amicably settled and the OTS transaction itself has reached finality. In view of the subsequent settlement between the parties, the information sought by the 2nd respondent no longer survives for consideration and the purpose for which the RTI application was filed has itself become infructuous. Therefore, the impugned order of the 1st respondent requires interference and the same may be set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent fairly submitted that the information sought was only concerned with the loan account of the 2nd respondent which was settled and closed amicably by way of OTS sanction by the petitioner Bank. However, he has no objection for issuance of suitable directions in the above regard.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is seen that the RTI application was submitted by the 2nd respondent seeking copies of the appraisal/process notes relating to the OTS proposal considered by the petitioner Bank. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the filing of the RTI proceedings, the disputes between the petitioner Bank and the 3/5

2nd respondent have been settled and therefore, the said transaction has attained finality.

8. It is clear that in view of the subsequent developments and the settlement arrived at between the parties, the information sought by the 2nd respondent is not required at this stage. Since the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was resolved, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

9. The writ petition stands allowed in view of the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.06.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order vsi2 To :

1. The Chief Information Commissioner Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg,Munirka, New Delhi-110 067.

2. M/s. Kissan Fats Limited Hazi Rattan Link Road, Bathinda-151 005.

4/5

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

vsi2 and W.M.P. No.13914 of 2023 08.06.2026 5/5