Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001339
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 7 September 2011
Date of decision : 7 September 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Jay Anand
Qtr. No. L/S35, Harmu Housing Colony,
Near Harmu High Court Colony, Harmu,
Ranchi - 834 012.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Muzaffarpur.
The Appellant was represented by Harish Chandra Das.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Z.I. Ansari, CPIO was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The representative of the Appellant was present in the Ranchi studio of
the NIC. The Respondents were present in the Muzaffarpur studio. We heard
their submissions.
3. In three separate applications, the Appellant had sought a large number
of information regarding various loan accounts of a number of borrowers of the
bank. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under
Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. We carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made
CIC/SM/A/2010/001339
by both the parties. Although the CPIO had refused the information by citing the
correct exemption provision, his order was not very speaking. We would expect
the CPIO to be careful in future and pass speaking orders while denying any
information.
5. It is a fact that the CPIO had sought a large number of information
regarding the loan account details of several borrowers of the bank. Ordinarily,
such information is not to be disclosed in terms of the provisions cited by the
CPIO being in the nature of commercial confidence. The Appellant has also not
indicated how the disclosure of such information would serve any larger public
interest.
6. However, if any of these loan cases involves any form of subsidy or
concession including interest rate subvention, in terms of numerous rulings
given by the CIC in the past, some information about such loan cases could be
disclosed. We have decided in the past that in loan cases under such schemes
as the PMRY or the KCC, such details about the borrowers as their names, the
date and the amount of loans sanctioned, the landholding of the borrowers as
indicated in the loan application or accepted by the bank and the purpose of the
loan should be disclosed. Applying those yardsticks, if the loans sanctioned to
the individuals named by the Appellant in his RTI applications are under any
such scheme, the Appellant should be given the above items of information in
respect of all these borrowers.
7. We direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of
receiving this order such information as listed above only if the loans granted to
them involved any subsidy in any form including any other concession or
interest rate subvention. However, if the loans sanctioned to these individuals
CIC/SM/A/2010/001339
do not involve any such subsidy or concession or interest rate subvention, the
CPIO shall clearly state so while writing to the Appellant and will not be required
to provide any information.
8. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001339