Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/A/2008/0982-SM dated 26.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 27.05.2009
Appellant : Shri Harsh Chait and Shri Praful Chait
Respondent : State Bank of India
Both the Appellants are present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law)
(ii) Shri Subrat Kumar Sinha, Chief Manager
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO on 26 October 2007 for permission to inspect
the loan documents after which he might need copies of some of those papers. The CPIO
replied on 5 December 2007, that is, beyond the stipulated period, and informed him that the
said documents being the subject matter of certain court cases had been deposited in the
competent court. Not satisfied with this reply, he preferred an appeal before the first
appellate authority on 30 November 2007. The first Appellate Authority decided his appeal in
this order dated to January 2008 and, quoting a certain order of the CIC dated 17 September
2007 in the Appeal No. 908/ICPB/2007, held that the CPIO was right in not permitting the
Appellant to inspect those documents. It is against this order of the first Appellate Authority
that the Appellant has come before the CIC in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their submissions. The
Appellant submitted that he wanted to inspect the loan documents since the Bank had never
given him copies of those documents at the time of grant of loan. The Respondent argued
that several court cases had been pending between the Appellant and the Bank in competent
courts and these documents were necessary records and could be obtained through those
competent courts and not through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In any case, the first
Appellate Authority had already referred to the CIC decision of 17 September 2007 in which
the Commission had held that if a certain information related to a pending proceeding before
a competent court/tribunal, then the said information should be obtained only through that
court/tribunal and not by using the provisions of the RTI Act. The implication of the CIC order
is that if certain records and documents have been produced in a court of law in the course of
a case or if a competent court has summoned certain records and documents for adjudication
of a matter pending before it, copies of such records and documents should be obtained from
No.CIC/PB/A/2008/0982-SM
the competent court and not through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In this case,
however, the situation is not the same. The Appellant produced a communication from the
competent court showing that the loan documents under reference had not been furnished by
the Respondent in that court in connection with the pending cases.
4. In view of this, we direct the CPIO concerned to allow the Appellant to inspect the
desired loan documents, if still available with the Bank and not yet deposited in any court of
law, within 10 working days from the receipt of this order. After inspection, if the Appellant
identifies all or some of those documents for the purpose of obtaining certified copies, the
CPIO shall provide him with the copies after the Appellant deposits the cost of copying as per
the rules.
5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
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)
Assistant Registrar
No.CIC/PB/A/2008/0982-SM