CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002143/15801
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002143
Relevant Factsemerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chahdra Ashopa
Sewagon ka Mohila.
P.O::Boraward, -341502,
Dist Nagaur-- (Raj.)
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Mathur
PIO & Chief Manager
UCO Bank
Zonal office
Khailand Market
Ajmer - 305001
RTI application filed on : 22/04/2011
PIO replied : 28/04/2011
First appeal filed on : 27/05/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 24/6/2011
Second Appeal received on : 02/08/2011
Information Sought:
Your branch office sanctioned the loan form 1 April 2002 to 31march, 2011 for which the leased land of
Village Panchyat was mortgaged. After the registration of the leased land the branch sanctioned the loan
on house, shop, occupation and godown. Provide the list of the persons who took the loan by this
procedure with details.
Provide the details of the amount of loan approved, lessee & debtor, date of sanctioning of the leased land,
outstanding amount. The details provided above are not personal.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Financial year Loan sanctioned against Sanctioned amount ( in
the lease land Lac)
2005-06 12 46.50
2006-07 3 17.50
2007-08 3 14.50
2008-09 5 20
2009-10 12 65.28
2010-11 6 31.90
Total 41 195.68The information sought by the applicant is related to the customers of the bank and comes under the trust
and the commercial confidentiality so this king of information can not be disclosed under the section 8(1)
(d),(e) and (10)
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory and incomplete
Order of the FAA:
Not ordered
Ground of the Second Appeal
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chahdra Ashopa on telephone no.09413038683;
Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar Mathur, PIO & Chief Manager on video conference from NIC-Ajmer
Studio;
The appellant had sought information about the transactions with customers of the bank. The Bank
has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of
the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that relationship. In
business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular
profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of
such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a
choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient
goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary
relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one
who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot
be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job,
or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it
because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit.
Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is
shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public interest has been
demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
21 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)