Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00852-SM dated 24.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 23 July 2009
Name of the Complainant : Shri Gopal Krishan Prasad,
S/o Late Shri Girija Shankar Prasad,
Himani Bhawan, New Barganda,
Giridih, Jharkhand.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, UCO Bank, Zonal Office,
Sainik Bazar, Main Road,
Ranchi - 834 001.
The Complainant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri U.P. Srivastava, was present.
2. The case in brief is that the Appellant had, in this application dated
24 April 2008, requested the CPIO/Branch Manager for a number of
information concerning the loan accounts of some of the customers of the
Bank. The CPIO, in his reply dated 7 May 2008, provided the desired
information, point wise. Not satisfied with this reply, he wrote to the CPIO
again on 13 May 2008 and later on 13 June 2008. In response, the CPIO
replied on 24 June 2008 and explained that further details about the loan
accounts of the said customers could not be disclosed being confidential in
nature and the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted
invasion of the privacy of their clients. He stated that the disclosure of such
information was exempt under section 8(1((j) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. Instead of going in appeal against the decision of the CPIO, the
Appellant directly sent his second appeal to the CIC
3. The hearing was conducted through videoconferencing. The Appellant
was not present in the Giridih studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was
present in the Ranchi studio. The Respondent submitted that whatever
information could be shared and disclosed without affecting the commercial
CIC/PB/C/2008/00852-SM
confidence of the borrowers had already been provided to the Appellant
within the stipulated period. Further details about the loan accounts could
not be disclosed as it was held by the Bank in commercial confidence and
the disclosure of such information would affect the competitive position of
those parties. He argued that section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act exempted such information from disclosure. We tend to agree with
the contentions of the Respondent. The Appellant has not mentioned how
the disclosure of such information would be in any larger public interest,
the only condition in which the exemption provided by the above section
would not apply. We also find that the CPIO had, within the stipulated
period, provided adequate and sufficient information on all the queries
listed in his application. There is nothing more to be given in this case.
4. Thus, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied
against application and payment of the charges pres
cribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/C/2008/00852-SM