Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava vs State Bank Of India on 27 September, 2010

Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava vs State Bank Of India on 27 September, 2010
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                                             .....

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/900433
Dated, the 27  September, 2010.

th

Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava 

Respondent : State Bank of India, Mumbai
s

This   matter   came   up   for   hearing   on   24.09.2010.     Appellant  
was   absent   when   called,   while   the   respondents   were   represented   by  
Shri M.V.Krishnamurthy, AGM and Ms.Lakshmy Iyer, Deputy Manager.

2. It   is   seen   from   the   documents   filed   by   the   appellant   that   his 
RTI­application   dated   04.03.2010   was   for   disclosure   of,   what   he   has 
described as, the Credit Assessment Scoring Sheet in respect of a loan 
he had applied from the Madame Came Road Branch of the SBI.

3. Through   CPIO’s   communication   dated   15.03.2010   ―   which   was 
upheld   by   the   order   of   the   Appellate   Authority   dated   30.03.2010   ― 
information   as   requested   was   declined   on   the   ground   that   it   attracted 
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

4. Appellate   Authority’s   order   recorded   that   the   Credit   Assessment 
Scoring   Sheet  was   uniquely  developed  for  internal   use  of  the  Bank  in 
order   to   let   it   decide   how   it   wished   to   respond   to   any   application   for 
advance   or   loan.     If   it   is   allowed   to   be   disclosed,   it   will   create   a 
competitive disadvantage for the Bank vis­à­vis its competitors as it would 
reveal the methodology used by the Bank and would expose the process 
to manipulation by prospective borrowers.

CIC_SM_A_2010_900433_M_43200.doc 
Page 1 of 2

5. I   am   in   agreement   with   the   respondents   that   methodologies   for 
assessment   of   loan   applications   uniquely   developed   by   commercial 
organizations such as Banks should be allowed to remain confidential lest 
its   disclosure   made   the   methodology   ineffective   and   gave   undue 
advantage  to the Bank’s  competitors.    It does  attract  the prohibition  of 
Section 8(1)(d).

6. The   decision   of   the   Appellate   Authority   not   to   disclose   the 
information is, therefore, upheld.

7. Appeal fails.  Closed.

8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties. 

( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

CIC_SM_A_2010_900433_M_43200.doc 
Page 2 of 2