CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001307/SG/14272
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001307SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. N. Sreenivaslulu,
H. No:1-11, Tada Kandriga(Vi),
Tada post and Mandal,
Nellore District,
Andhra Pradesh-524401.
Respondent : Mr. U. S. Lal
PIO & General Manager
Small Industries Development bank Of India
Head Office, 15, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow-226001.
RTI application filed on : 13/05/2010
PIO replied : 18/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 04/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 11/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 17/09/2010
The Appellant in his RTI Application has sought information about Sharanaa Pharma Limited, D/64,
Nirpuram colony, site-1, Borabanda ,Hyderabad and unit address survey no. 163/A & 164/A
Pittampatty village, Chityal mandal, Nalgor on the following:
Sl. Information sought
1 Provide details of the term loan sanctioned to the above company, amount sanctioned, 1st
disbursement, 2nd disbursement with details, Individual enterprises details those who took advances
from the bank
2 Total no. of directors and their names and also their shareholdings in the company.
3 Total no. of guarantors and their names and properties ,mortgage to the bank, property details etc.
4 Give details of the new directors introduced in the company after 20th November.
5 What was the directors share pattern in the company before sanction of loan from the bank after the
new directors were introduced, if any?.
6 Provide zerox copies of all documents presented to the Bank to obtain loan from it.
7 Provide zerox copies of invoices and certificates collected from persons, enterprises/ companies for
distributing loan advances for supplying furniture, machinery etc.
8 Provide details of the Repayment of term loan
9 Provide details of remaining amount of term loan to be paid, Is there any due to be paid up to
present date i.e 13.05.20?
10 Is there change in the ownership of the company? If yes then provide details.
PIO’s Reply:
Information cannot be provided since it is exempted under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Grounds for First appeal:
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO.
The First Appellant Authority’s Order:
He seconds the decision of the PIO.
Grounds For Second Appeal:
Dissatisfied with the reply of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. N. Sreenivaslulu on video conference from NIC-Nellore Studio;
Respondent : Mr. U. S. Lal, PIO & General Manager and Mr. S. C. Garg, FAA on video conference
from NIC-Lucknow Studio;
The Appellant has sought information regarding the accounts of a customer of the Bank. The
PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The
Commission agrees that information held by a Bank of his customers account is held in a fiduciary
capacity.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that
relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those
that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another
important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of
information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer
chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for
the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the
information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships
usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided
in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to
have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it
because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit.
Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public
interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
25 August 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)