Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001677 dated 18052009
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 21 July 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Firoz B Hajiani
268/69, Karimbad Society,
116, Imamwada Road, 3rd Floor,
Mumbai - 400 009.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Mumbai Main Office Bldg.,
4th Floor, M G Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001.
The Appellant was present along with Shri S.P. Mathew.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Sridhar, CPIO was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 18 May 2009,
requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the report of the
Indian Bureau of Investigation for tracing the assets of some particular
individuals in connection with the recovery of loan sanctioned to M/s Macnair
Exports Private Ltd. In his reply dated 5 June 2009, the CPIO refused to
disclose the information by claiming it to be a trade secret. Against this
response of the CPIO, the Appellant had preferred an appeal on 28 September
2007. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by his order dated past
August 2009 without providing any relief to the Appellant. Consequently, the
Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal.
CIC/SM/A/2009/001677
3. We heard this case through video conferencing. Both the parties were
present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions. We also
carefully examined the records. It seems the bank has initiated recovery
proceedings against the above company in the DRT. It is in connection with that
case that the bank had engaged the services of a private investigating agency
to ascertain the assets of the directors of the company including the Appellant.
The Respondent argued that disclosing the details of the report would amount
to disclosing the trade secrets and commercial confidence of other parties and
might also adversely affect the commercial interests of the bank itself. The
Appellant argued that he was not interested in knowing about the details about
the others but wanted to know about the findings of the investigating agency
about his assets only.
4. Keeping the submissions of both the parties in mind, we feel that the
CPIO should provide to the Appellant those extracts of the report of the
investigating agency which strictly relate to the Appellant and his assets.
Similarly, if there is any file in which the report of the investigating agency had
been processed, the relevant portions of the file noting relating to the Appellant
only should also be disclosed. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the
Appellant the above two items of information within 10 working days from the
receipt of this order.
5. The case is disposed of accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2009/001677
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/2009/001677