Central Information Commission File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001021 dated 28122007 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Dated: 18 May 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Suresh Kumar Rungta S/o Late Shri Bal Chand Rungta, R/o Plot No. E4, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur - 302 005. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Anil Sukhani, CPIO was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 28 December
2007, requested the CPIO for information regarding the sanction and
disbursement of loan to M/s RMC Med Limited. In his reply dated 16 January
2008, the CPIO refused the request on the ground that the information sought
by the Appellant pertained to a third party and could not be given to him.
Against this the Appellant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority in his
order dated 20 February 2008 endorsed the stand of the CPIO. It is against this
order that the Appellant has come to the CIC in a second appeal.
3. We heard this case for video conferencing. Both the parties were
present during the hearing in the Jaipur studio of the NIC. The Appellant
submitted that he was one of the Directors of the company and that some of the
other Directors of the company managed to obtain a loan from the Bank in spite
of a stay given by a court of law against the company holding any Board
meeting etc and therefore, he wanted to get such information about the said
loan. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the loan had been duly
sanctioned to the company after completing all legal requirements and that the
Appellant was not an authorised signatory to the said loan account and,
therefore, he could not be provided with any details about the loan granted to a
thirdparty customer. We have consistently held that as exempted under
Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, loan account details
cannot be disclosed to unconnected information seekers being in the nature of
commercial confidence. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the
CPIO was right in denying the information.
4. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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