Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001105
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 7 June 2011
Date of decision : 7 June 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jagdish Gupta
Jan Kalyan Upbhogta Parishad,
Moti Bazar, Haridwar.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Bank of Baroda,
Regional Office, (Uttarakhand Region)
1 Sankalan, Civil Lines,
Haldwani - 263 141.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Rahul Sharma, Legal Manager was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant did not
turn up in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Nainital studio of
the NIC. We heard his submissions.
3. The Appellant had requested for information on 6 points from the CPIO
in his RTI request dated 05/05/2010. These concerned the details about the
eligibility of customers for accessing various kinds of loans for selfemployment.
Besides, he had also wanted to know about all those borrowers who had failed
to repay their loan in time. The CPIO, in his reply dated 01/06/2010, stated that
CIC/SM/A/2010/001105
answers to points 1,2,4,5 and 6 was available on the website of the bank while
the information regarding the borrowers who had failed to repay their loans in
time could not be disclosed since it fell under the exempted category of Section
8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act for its disclosure might harm the
competitive position of a third party. Aggrieved by this reply, the Appellant had
filed the first appeal on 27/06/2010. It is not clear if the Appellate Authority had
passed any order on his appeal though.
4. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we think that it would be
useful for the bank to provide all the relevant circulars/guidelines about the loan
schemes to the Appellant for his inspection. Even if the schemes are available
in the website of the bank, not every citizen can be expected to have access to
computers with Internet or be familiar with operating computers. Therefore, the
bank should invite him to the branch concerned and show him all the relevant
schemes and also clarify if he has any specific query. In regard to the details
about the borrowers who had failed to repay their loans in time, we have
consistently held that in NPA cases, only the names of those borrowers should
be disclosed against whom the bank has already gone to any court of law or
tribunal for recovery and not the names of such borrower whose account has
become NPA only technically.
5. In the light of the above, we direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on
any mutually convenient date to the relevant branch within 20 working days
from the receipt of this order and to show him the details of the schemes under
which the bank sanctions various loans for selfemployment et cetera. Besides,
we also directed him to provide the Appellant with a list of all those borrowers
from this particular branch against whom the bank would have gone to any
court of law or tribunal for recovery of unpaid loans during the last two years.
CIC/SM/A/2010/001105
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001105