1
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal : No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001238DS &
CIC/AT/A/2010/001230DS
Appellant /Complainant : Sh. Kul Bhushan Jain,
Rohtak
Public Authority : State Bank of India,
Chandigarh
(Sh.Devinder Singh, AGM(Law)
and Sh.
Kamal Sharma, Dy.Mgr. -
through video
Conferencing)
Date of Hearing : 31 October 2011
Date of Decision : 31 October 2011
Facts
:
1. Shri K. B. Jain submitted RTI application dated
13 September 2010 before the CPIO, State Bank of
India, Chandigarh and Mumbai respectively, seeking
information relating to the cases where various
branches of the Bank under their respective
jurisdiction had compromised/settled with the
defaulting parties, during the last three years
either through court or through private negotiations-
enclosed herewith as Annexure A.
2. The appellant specifically submits that if the
public authority feels, it can avoid disclosing the
names of the parties on the account of protecting
their personal information.
3. Vide CPIO order dated 13 October 2010,
information was not provided to the appellant, as the
RTI application constitutes information of
“commercial confidence” of third party u/s 8 (1) (d)
of the RTI Act, the Order further said that otherwise
also, the information sought is not readily available
in the manner as sought and collection/compilation of
such information will disproportionately divert the
resources of the Bank.
Appeal : No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001238DS &
CIC/AT/A/2010/001230DS
2
4. Not satisfied with the order, Appellant
preferred appeal dated 18 October 2010, before the
first appellate authority.
5. Vide FAA order dated 12 October 2010, the
information was not disclosed to the appellant as its
exemption is available u/s 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (j) of
the Act.
6. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the
above orders the appellant preferred second appeal
before the Commission.
7. The Appellant was present through audio
conferencing. Respondents were present through
videoconferencing at Chandigarh and Mumbai
respectively. The Respondent submits that the
information sought pertains to the “commercial
confidence” of the third party and also is personal
information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. They also
directed the Commission to the earlier order of the
Commission dated 8th November 2007
(CIC/PB/A2007/01082) and 8th September 2009
(CIC/PB/A/2008/01206/SM) claiming that the said
information could not be disclosed since such
information held by the bank in commercial confidence
and disclosure of such information could have adverse
impact on the competitive position of those
customers.
8. The respondents maintained that even otherwise
also, the information sought is not readily available
with the Bank.
Decision notice
9. After hearing both the parties the Commission is
of the view that the information sought is neither
against the “commercial confidence” nor “personal
information” of the third party. The RTI application
specifically states that the disclosure of the Names
of the defaulting parties can be omitted in the
information provided by the Bank. Thus, the question
of the disclosure of the personal information does
not arise. Also, the appellant has only asked the
Date and total amount that the bank has
Appeal : No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001238DS &
CIC/AT/A/2010/001230DS
3
settled/compromised with the defaulting part which
cannot amount as “commercial confidence” of the third
party and disclosure of which could have adverse
impact on the competitive position of those third
party.
10. After perusing through the Orders supplied at
the hearing by the respondents, it is observed by the
Commission that the said orders are pertaining to
different set of facts in which the personal
information/ individual details of the NPA account
have been sought by the applicant from the Bank,
which indeed is held by a Bank in commercial
confidence and disclosure of such information could
have adverse impact on the competitive position of
those customers. Also, in those cases the RTI
applicant has not been able to establish any larger
public interest which warrants the disclosure of such
information.
11. While in the present case, the Commission is of
the view that there is Larger Public Interest
involved in disclosing the Settlement amount of the
Banks with the Defaulting parties as it will help in
transparent functioning of the public authority which
is the very objective of the RTI Act.
12. The Commission hereby directs the CPIOs of the
respective public authorities to furnish the
information to the Appellant within 3 weeks of the
receipt of this Order.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)
Information Commissioner (DS)
Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra)
Under Secretary & Dy. Registrar
Tel. No. 01126105027
Copy to:
1. Shri Kul Bhushan Jain
Anaaj Mandi,
Rohtak124001(Haryana)
Appeal : No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001238DS &
CIC/AT/A/2010/001230DS
4
2. The CPIO
Asst.General Manager (P&E)
State Bank of India, Local H.O.
P.B.No.139, Sector17B,
Chandigarh160017
3. The Appellate Authority
General Manager (Network2)
State Bank of India, Local H.O.
P.B.No.139, Sector17B,
Chandigarh160017
Appeal : No. CIC/AT/A/2010/001238DS &
CIC/AT/A/2010/001230DS