Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00652-SM dated 04.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 19.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Amit Jain
Respondent: Central Bank of India
Appellant is not present inspite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:
(i) Sh. S. P. Mehra, Assist. Regional Manager
(ii) Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Law Officer
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in his letter dated 11.08.2007,
seeking, in all, 13 pieces of information in respect of the loan account of M/s
Arihant Woollen Mill (Pvt.) Ltd. The CPIO, in his reply dated 28.09.2007, denied
the information by invoking the provisions of Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to
Information Act. He also stated that the Bank had already filed a recovery suit
against the borrowers including the guarantors before the relevant Debt Recovery
Tribunal and, hence, the matter was sub-judice. He, however, enclosed a copy of
the application for the recovery of the debt filed by the Bank along with the form
of guarantee for advances and credit for the information of the Appellant. Not
satisfied with the reply, the Appellant had filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority on 24.10.2007, from the records enclosed with the appeal, it
appears that the Appellate Authority did not decide on his appeal at all. The
Respondents, however, showed us a copy of the order passed by the Appellate
Authority on 07.11.2007 in which he had upheld the decision of the CPIO. The
Appellant has now approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was absent inspite of notice. We
carefully examined his appeal along with all the documents enclosed. We heard
the Respondent and also perused the comments sent by the Respondent and the
rejoinder of the Appellant on those comments. On a close reading of the request
for information, it is noted that the Appellant had sought not so much as
information but had raised a large number of queries seeking Bank’s comments
or opinion on those queries. All the queries and questions pertain to M/s Arihant
Woollen Mill Pvt. Ltd., clearly a third party, even though the Appellant was
guarantor for that borrower. The Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information Act
reads as follows:
“Information including commercial confidence, trade, secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”
4. The details about the loan account of the third party are held by the Bank
in commercial confidence. Obviously, the disclosure of such information to
somewhat unrelated with the third party is likely to harm the competitive
position of that party. Besides, many of the Appellant’s queries in his original
application for information do not fall in the category of information. For
example, the query at no. (viii) of his list of information, namely, while the Bank
allowed the developer company to sell its main property situated at Brahampuri,
Ludhiana and why the Bank did not issue any public notice in news papers etc.,
does not amount to seeking information as defined under the RTI Act, but more
of seeking an explanation for certain conduct of the Bank. In the same query, he
states that the authority should not have allowed this as it was an illegal,
unauthorized, arbitrary procedure to be followed when knowing fully well that
such a procedure is not permitted by CVC, Government of India which is
obviously his personal opinion. The Appellant has already drawn his own
conclusion about the so called permission by the Bank for sale of the main
property to be illegal, unauthorized and arbitrary and he is only seeking a
confirmation from the Bank. We feel that the CPIO was not bound to give replies
to such queries as this did not amount to seeking information. We tend to agree
with the views of the CPIO and reject this appeal.
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