Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Harcharan Singh vs Delhi Co-Operative Housing … on 4 March, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mr. Harcharan Singh vs Delhi Co-Operative Housing … on 4 March, 2009
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                      Room no. 415, 4th Floor,
                    Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
                        New Delhi - 110066
                       Tel: +91 11 26161796

                                                Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2008/00263/2164
                                                      Appeal No. CIC/ SG/A/2008/00263

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                               :        Mr. Harcharan Singh,
                                                 908, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri,
                                                 New Delhi - 110018.

Respondent                              :        Mr. L. R. Garg,

General Manager & PIO
Delhi Co-Operative Housing Finance
Corporation Limited,
3/6 Siri Fort Institutional Area,
August Karnti Marg,
New Delhi – 110049.

RTI application filed on                :        16/09/2008
Reply from PIO                          :        15/10/2008
First Appeal filed on                   :        20/10/2008
First Appellate Authority order         :        19/11/2008
Second Appeal filed on                  :        05/12/2008

The Appellant had filed an application seeking information relating to the Loan
Account of the Central Govt. Services Co-op Land & G/H Society Ltd.
The information required with the reply of PIO is as under:

S.No.          Information Sought                               PIO's Reply
 1.     Loan Details (Each Installment).        The PIO had replied that the information
        Date Loan released, Amount, Date        sought by the Appellant under pars a, b, e, f
        Loan disbursed by DCHFC to              & g cannot be provided as the same pertains
        Society, Amount, Rate of Interest,      to the loan account of the society and as such
        Date Interest to be charged from.       the same cannot be divulged to any other
        In Case There Was No Default.           person except the loanee society in-terms of
        Date When Loan Would Have               the provision contained under Section 8(1) (e)
        Liquidated, Interest the would have     of the RTI Act, the information is held in the
        been paid.                              fiduciary relationship and as well as in the
        Total Amount that would have been       commercial confidence.
        paid.
 2.     Total Number of interest/penal          As above.
        interest /charged/paid till Sep. 2003
        and till date i.e. Sep 2008.
 3.     Date on which Loan taken from LIC       In respect of Para c of the application, this
        for the Society was liquidated.         information pertains to loan arrangement
                                                between LIC and DCHFC, which is also
                                               under fiduciary relationship and of
                                              commercial confidence and as such is
                                              exempted from disclosure of information
                                              under Section 8(1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act.

4. Year wise Book Value of DCHFC Shares of the DCHFC are not listed shares
shares starring from 1986 till last and value of each share is at per i.e. Rs. 500/-
AGM of DCHFC. per share and these shares are neither
transferable nor negotiable.

5. Quarterly build up of accepted As in Para 1 above.

excess payment made by the
Society/member vide DCHFC Letter
No. 20(298)99.2000/DCHFC 5084
dated 18th June, 1999, its
adjustment/appropriation.

6. Any other excess/additional payment As above.

made by the Society/members after
March, 1995 and its
adjustment/appropriation

7. Quarterly build up of the present As above.

amount under default.

First Appellate Authority Ordered:

“The Appellant was informed that there is already a provision for seeking the
information under the Delhi Co-op. Societies Act, 2003. The Appellant may accordingly
approach his society to obtain the relevant information.

The SPIO/GM, has correctly applied Section 8 of the RTI Act, 05 for withholding the
information.”

Relevant facts emerging during hearing:

The following were present.

Appellant: Mr. Harcharan Singh
Respondent: Mr. L.R. Garg PIO
The respondent states that the information is exempt under Section 8 (1) (d) & (e).
The respondent states that other banks could also offer such services; hence disclosure
of information by them of the details of loans would affect their competitive position.
The respondent and appellant are asked to give their written submissions on the issue
of whether the exemptions under Section 8 (1) (d) & (e) apply in this case. Both are
asked to give their submissions to the Commission before 20 February 2009.
The appellant has

Decision announced on 4 March 2009:

The appellant has not given any submissions. The respondent Mr. L.R.Garg
has given written submissions on 3 February 2009 arguing why the information
should not be disclosed. It particularly states:

“The perusal of Appendix F of the Appeal would make the matter clear. In the
Appendix F of the Appeal it is clearly mentioned that Sh. Harcharan Singh has
deposited a sum of Rs .12, 500- through the said society to discharge the loan liability
of the society and same has been deposited by the society with the DCHFC along with
amount collected by the society from other members.

DCHFC took loan from Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to finance
its member societies by entering into loan agreement and mortgage deed. Therefore,
there exists fiduciary relationship between LIC and DCHFC and between DCHFC
and loanee society.

Central Information Commission (CIC) in Appeal No. 41/ICPB/2006 dated
30062006 in respect of Maj. J.S. Kohli – VS-Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
in which information of the details of the borrower and loans being in the nature of
commercial confidence and the information available in its fiduciary relationship,
disclosure of the said information was denied and accordingly appeal dismissed by the
Hon’ble CIC.

With regard Paras 7 & 8, it is submitted that the Appellant has sought the
information in respect of the transactions between the DCHFC the said society, and
between DCHFC and LIC, from where the DCHFC borrowed the funds. All these
transactions are entered into commercial confidence and there exists fiduciary
relationship between LIC and DCHFC, between DCHFC and said society. The
Appellant can not force the public authority to divulge the information which has
been held in the fiduciary relationship and which directly affects their commercial
interest.

Further, the Appellant has been provided information which was not found to
be held in fiduciary relationship and commercial confidence.”
The Commission accepts that the respondent’s contention of the exemptions under
Section 8 (1) of the RTI act appear to be justified.

The Appeal is dismissed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
4 March 2009

(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)