Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Alok Kumar vs Canara Bank on 18 October, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Alok Kumar vs Canara Bank on 18 October, 2010
                           Central Information Commission
                             File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001397 
                  Right to Information Act­2005­Under Section  (19)




                                                                  Dated: 18 October 2010



Name of the Appellant                  :    Shri Alok Kumar
                                            Vill & Post - Sirsa, Colony Bhaya 
                                            Majhariya, Distt - Motihari, East 
                                            Champaran, Bihar - 845 401.



Name of the Public Authority           :    CPIO, Canara Bank,
                                            Regional Office, 
                                            Aghoria Bazar,
                                            Muzaffarpur.



        The Appellant was represented by Shri Sujit Kumar.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Raghvan was present.

 

2. We   heard   this   case   through   videoconferencing.   The   Appellant   was 

present in the Motihari studio of the NIC along with his representative. The 

Respondents   were   present   in   the   Muzaffarpur   studio.   We   heard   their 

submissions.

3. The   Appellant   had   sought   a   number   of   information   regarding   the 

applicants   for   loan   under   the   KCC   scheme.   The   CPIO   had   denied   the 

information   by   claiming   exemption   under   Section   8(1)   (j)   of   the   Right   to 

Information (RTI) Act. We do not agree with the CPIO. The information sought 

by   the   Appellant   cannot   be   classified   either   as   personal   information   or 

CIC/SM/A/2009/001397
commercial   confidence.   Under   the   KCC   scheme,   the   bank   offers   interest 

subvention to the borrowers. As held by us in the numerous cases, wherever 

there is any subsidy or concession, the details about the recipients of such 

subsidy or concession should be disclosed to promote transparency. In this 

case, in addition to the fact that the information sought is regarding applicants 

under the KCC scheme, there is also some information which is about alleged 

acts of forgery and fraud, all the more reason why such information should be 

disclosed.

4. Therefore,   we   direct   the   CPIO  to   provide   to   the   Appellant   within   10 

working days from the receipt of this order a complete list of applicants under 

the   KCC   scheme   as   sought   by   the   Appellant   including   the   list   of   such 

applicants, if any, who had furnished forged documents along with their loan 

applications. The CPIO shall also inform if the bank had initiated any action 

against such applicants. Besides, he shall also send a copy of the relevant 

circular of the bank, if any, which restricts a son from borrowing under the KCC 

if his father is already a borrower.

5. With the above directions, the appeal is disposed off.

6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner

CIC/SM/A/2009/001397
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

CIC/SM/A/2009/001397