Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000916 dated 10112008
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Dated: 12 May 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri K. Thangam,
S/o Shri Kuthalam Pillai,
57, New Street, Marandaballi,
Dharampuri District,
Tamil Nadu - 636 806.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office,
16, College Lane,
Chennai - 600 006.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Naidu, Law Officer,
(ii) Shri Kasi, Manager
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 10 November
2008, requested the CPIO for permission to inspect all the educational loan
cases sanctioned to firstyear students between 1 June to 31 October 2008 by
the Maranda Halli Branch. In his reply dated 7 January 2009, the CPIO, with
reference to the Appellant’s letter dated 11 December 2008, observed that the
desired information could not be disclosed being exempt under Section 8(1) (j)
of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant
preferred an appeal on 12 February 2009 which the Appellate Authority
dismissed in his order dated 12 March 2009 by endorsing the order of the
CPIO. The Appellant has come to the CIC in second appeal against this order.
CIC/SM/A/2009/000916
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Dharmapuri studio of the NIC whereas the Respondents were
present in the Chennai studio. We heard their submissions. We also carefully
examined the request for information and the reply given by the CPIO. The
Appellant has desired to inspect all educational loan cases sanctioned during a
particular period by the above Branch. He has no authorisation from the
borrowers for this purpose. As far as the Bank is concerned it holds the
information contained in the loan files of its customers in commercial
confidence and cannot be expected to disclose it except in larger public
interest. Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act is quite clear on this. In the present
case, there is nothing to believe that the disclosure of the information would in
any way serve a larger public interest. Therefore, the CPIO was right in not
disclosing the information or allowing the Appellant to inspect the relevant
records.
4. However, one thing has come out quite clear that the Branch Manager to
whom the Appellant had addressed his original application for information did
not accept it nor transfer it to the designated CPIO. In the process, the
Appellant did not get any response until he filed his first appeal which the CPIO
then treated as his first application. Although the Respondents submitted that it
was out of ignorance that the Branch Manager had acted in this manner, we
would like to hear him explain his conduct in dealing with the application for
information which resulted in a long delay in the Appellant getting any response
from the CPIO. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to depute the Branch Manager
concerned to appear before us on 7 June 2010 at 12.00 noon to explain in
person the reasons for his action in not entertaining the application when it was
first submitted to him and which resulted in the delay, otherwise avoidable. It
may be noted that if the Branch Manager fails to appear before us to explain
CIC/SM/A/2009/000916
the reasons for his action, we will proceed to impose penalty on him as per the
provisions of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act without giving
him any further opportunity of hearing.
5. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
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)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2009/000916