Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001158 & 1159
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 15 July 2011
Date of decision : 15 July 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Fidaali Dawood Kadiwala,
Shop No. 137, Commercial Complex,
New Sardar Market, Puna Kumbhariya
Road, Surat City
Shri Dilipbhai Vallabhbhai Kanani
Shop No. 19, Commercial Complex,
New Sardar Market, Puna Kumbhariya
Road, Surat City.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, Surat Region, 3rd Floor,
Saifee Bldg. Nanpura, Dutch Road,
Surat - 395 001.
Both the Appellant's were not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ajit Tripathi was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard both these cases together since the subject matter in both
these appeals is identical. In spite of notice, the Appellants did not report in the
NIC studio at Surat. However, the Respondent was present there on behalf of
the bank and made his submissions.
3. In two identical applications, the Appellants had sought a number of
CIC/SM/A/2010/001158 & 1159
details about the loans sanctioned to him and some others. The CPIO had
denied the information on the ground that it was related to a case of fraud and
some investigation was underway and that the disclosure of information at this
stage could adversely affect the investigation. He had cited the provisions of
Section 8(1) (h) in support of his decision. Later, the Appellate Authority held
that while the information regarding other customers need not be disclosed, the
information relating to the Appellants themselves should be provided to them.
Following this, the CPIO provided the available information.
4. During the hearing, the Respondent clarified that the original loan had
been sanctioned by a cooperative bank which had merged in some other bank
which in turn was taken over later by the Bank of Baroda and, therefore, not all
the relevant records were available with them. He further submitted that, based
on whatever records the bank had, all the queries of the Appellants had been
addressed and information provided after the Appellate Authority’s directions.
On our instruction, the Respondent read out the contents of the reply given by
the CPIO and we found the information provided to be adequate. The bank, the
CPIO cannot be compelled to produce those records which are not available in
the first place. In any case, most of the queries have been addressed, based on
the available records. Thus, there is nothing more the bank can provide against
these queries.
5. The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2010/001158 & 1159
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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001158 & 1159