CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000463
Dated, the 04 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri A.K. Bhandari
Respondent : State Bank of India, Chandigarh
s
This matter came up for hearing on 08.10.2010 pursuant to
Commission’s notice dated 17.09.2010. Appellant was absent when
called, while the respondents were represented by Shri Devinder Singh,
AGM (Law) and Shri S.K. Sethi, AGM (BOPM).
2. Through his RTIapplication dated 20.02.2010, appellant listed nine
queries to be answered by CPIO. These queries were as follows:
“1. Total number of applications received categorywise i.e. for
200 sq. yards & 250 sq. yards.
2. Total amount collected categorywise.
3. Total number of applicants who have raised the loan. From
you being the nodal bank.
4. Total amount delivered as loan to the applicants.
5. Total amount collected as interest on loan.
6. Total amount refunded after the date of draw i.e. 11th Nov
2009 out of interest collected by bank.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000463_M_45180.doc
Page 1 of 4
7. Total interest paid to GLADA on the deposits.
8. TDS deducted on the interest.
9. How much and at what rate of interest amount has been paid
to successful and unsuccessful applicants on the amount
which remained with the authorities.”
2. CPIO, through his reply dated 25.02.2010, gave the requisite
information to the appellant, but for the balance items of requests, CPIO
claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act claiming the
information to be of commercial confidence to the Bank.
3. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 30.03.2010, held that the
information requested through items at Sl.Nos.4 to 9 in appellant’s RTI
application not only was information commercial in nature, it also
pertained to the thirdpartycustomers of the Bank. Therefore, apart from
Section 8(1)(d), the Appellate Authority also invoked Section 8(1)(j) to
decline to disclose the information to appellant.
4. In his secondappeal petition, the appellant has argued that
disclosure of the requested information was necessary because,
according to him, in advancing loans for purchase of 158 numbers of
plots offered for sale to public by Greater Ludhiana Area Development
Authority on 20 July 2009 the Bank had, in collusion with the statutory
bodies, “fleeced the gullible public of about Rs.8 crores (i.e. the interest
@10% on the collected amount of Rs.247 crores, which was refunded
back to unsuccessful applicants after (Bank retained the amount for) 34
months”.
5. During hearing, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that the
abovementioned loans were advanced by the Branches of the Bank
CIC_AT_A_2010_000463_M_45180.doc
Page 2 of 4
located within the Circle. The information, which the appellant has
requested, needs to be collected from all those Branches, collated and
provided to the appellant. They reiterated the point that the sought
information, if disclosed, would be hurtful to the Bank commercially as it
would give out all details of the loaning activities. The competitors might
use this information to financially hurt the Bank. So apart from the
exemptionSections, respondents also claimed that the exercise of
collecting the above information from all Bank Branches would be
expensive and hence the matter also came within the scope of Section
7(9) of the RTI Act.
6. A look at the appellant’s queries in his RTIapplication at points 49
would reveal that queries at Sl.Nos.4, 6, 9 as well as item at Sl.No.8 do
not attract Section 8(1)(d) as these relate to gross figures pertaining to
Bank’s loans relating to the GLADA.
7. In my view, the information requested through these items of
queries may be provided to the appellant as held by the Zonal Office.
8. On consideration of the context of the queries in Sl.Nos.5 and 7, it
is my view that this information should also be disclosed.
9. What appellant has requested to be informed relates to a welfare
related activity of the GLADA, in which the Bank became a participant.
The loans given were to promote the welfare measure taken by the
GLADA to provide affordable houses to the people. There is, therefore,
public interest in divulging as to how much of this loan was provided, how
the interests were charged and who received what quantum of interest.
This information will enable the public to critically assess the Scheme and
alert them about the risks and benefits. There is, therefore, public interest
in its disclosure, which overrides any claim to exemption.
10. It is accordingly directed that all information pertaining to queries of
the appellant at Sl.Nos.4 to 9 be provided to him within three weeks.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000463_M_45180.doc
Page 3 of 4
11. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000463_M_45180.doc
Page 4 of 4