Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Mr.Suresh Kumar Rungta vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur on 21 May, 2010
                              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 

CIC/SM/A/2009/001021
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.

(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/2009/001021


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.209 seconds.