Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00452-SM dated 31.05.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 16.12.2008
Appellant: Sh. M. Mobin Hussain
Respondent: Punjab National Bank
Appellant is absent inspite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present.
(i) Sh. Anurag Singh, Officer
(ii) Sh. Sartaj Singh, Sr. Manager (Law)
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in the Bank in his letter dated
20.11.2007 seeking information in respect of irregular loan accounts for the
period June, 2007 to July, 2007. The CPIO, in his reply dated 05.12.2007,
provided partial information. He explained the norms against which a loan
account is considered irregular. However, he declined to provide the details of
irregular loan accounts and the steps taken by the Bank for recovery in such loan
cases on the ground that this information was exempt from disclosure under
Section 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act. The Appellant had
approached the Appellate Authority in the Bank in an appeal dated 04.01.2008
which the Appellate Authority decided on 24.01.2008. The Appellate Authority
upheld the decision of the CPIO and held that the information sought at 2 & 3 of
the original application, was related to the accounts of other customers and was
held by the Bank in confidence. The disclosure of such information, the Appellate
Authority held, was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act.
Aggrieved by the order of the AA, the Appellant has approached this Commission
in second appeal.
3. Since the Appellant was absent, inspite of notice, we perused his appeal in
detail as also the documents enclosed with his appeal. The main ground of his
appeal is that the information sought by him with regard to regularization of an
irregular account concerned transparency and accountability on the part of the
Bank and was meant to eradicate malpractices and abuse of power by the Public
Authority and therefore, should be disclosed. He further argues that if the Bank
had followed its own norms with regard to regularization of an irregular account,
it should have no fear in disclosing such information. The Respondents
submitted that the concerned irregular accounts related to third parties and the
information sought was regarding the details about those accounts which, if
disclosed, would compromise the commercial confidence reposed by those
account holders in the Bank as also it would reveal trade secrets of those account
holders. Besides, they submitted that such information was held by them in a
fiduciary relationship.
DECISION
4. After perusing the appeal and after hearing the submissions made by the
Respondents, we are of the view that the Public Authority was right in denying
certain information to the Appellant which concerned the details about the
accounts, even if irregular, of other account holders. However, we are inclined to
consider that the Bank should disclose the number of such accounts which were
considered irregular during the period mentioned by the Appellant in his
application, namely, the period from June 2007 to July 2007 in this particular
Branch and whether the Bank had given adequate notices, if required, under their
rules, to the borrowers and the guarantors before effecting the recovery process.
This information should be given to the Appellant within 15 working days from
the receipt of this order and Compliance reported to the Commission. With the
above directions, we dispose of this case.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar