Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00203-SM dated 26.07.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 09.03.2009
Complainant : Shri Satyendra Kumar Mishra
Respondent : Union Bank of India
The Complainant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vipin Chandra, Senior Manager (Law), is
present.
The brief facts of the case are ads under.
2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO on an on 26 July 2007 for two items of
information about the educational loan applied by him. He had enclosed a Treasury
Challan for Rs 10 towards the fees. The CPIO did not reply to him and, hence, he
complained to the State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh against the CPIO. The
complaint has since been transferred to this Commission as this matter comes in our
jurisdiction.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice. The
Respondent has filed written comments a copy of which he has sent to the Complainant.
The Respondent has explained that the original application for information was not
accompanied with the proper application fee as provided in the Rules and, hence, the
CPIO was not bound to recognise the application and provide information. He also
argued that since the Applicant/Complainant had asked for information about the loan
proposal of another person, the Bank would not have provided that information even if
the application had been accompanied with the required fees. It seems, the person who
had filed the loan application had since gone to the Hon’ble High Court challenging the
refusal of the Bank to sanction the loan and the Hon’ble High Court had given certain
directions to the Bank which the Bank complied with. We note that, indeed, the
Complainant had deposited the application fee in a format not permitted in the Rules.
Hence, the CPIO was right in not recognising his application. We also agree with the
submission of the Respondent that the information sought was regarding a loan proposal
which a third party had presented before the Bank and the Bank could not have divulged
the details of that proposal as such disclosure was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. The complaint is devoid of merit and, hence, it is hereby
filed.
4. 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