Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000603 dated 07-05-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 17 March 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Narender R Nair
Plot No. RH 1/1, A-103,
MIDC, Dombivali (E),
Distt - Thane, Mumbai - 421 203.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of India,
Corporation Banking Group,
State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
P.B.No.12, Mumbai - 400 021.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri K.P. Prasad, Manager, was present.
This case was heard on 15 March 2010.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 7 May 2008,
requested the CPIO for information in respect of the circumstances in which
the State Bank of India decided to assign the debt/charge against Golden
Falcon Pacific Ltd. to the Standard Chartered Bank for a sum of Rs.38.32
crore although it had already obtained a decree against the borrower for a
sum of Rs.107.70 Crore. He also sought to know the reasons for such a
decision. The CPIO denied the information in his application dated 10- June
2009 claiming that this was in the nature of commercial confidence and was
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. Against this, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 27 August 2008
which the Appellate Authority rejected in his order dated 10 July 2008 in
which he concurred in the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has
challenged this order before us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing at Mumbai, the Appellant was not present in spite
of notice. However, the Respondent was present and submitted that this
very matter had been considered by the Central Information Commission in
CIC/SM/A/2009/000603
the case of Shailesh Kumar Mistry Vs. State Bank of India in the appeal No.
CIC/SM/A/2009/000469 and the Commission had passed an order on 10
February 2010 giving certain directions to the CPIO. He further submitted
that except the name of the Applicant/Appellant, the information sought in
both these cases is exactly the same. We carefully examined the contents
of both the cases and found that the content of the information sought is
exactly the same in this case as it was in the other case. Therefore, we do
not intend to pass any separate order in this case now. The direction given
to the CPIO in our order No. CIC/SM/A/2009/000469 dated 10 February 2010
in the above appeal would, mutatis mutandis, apply in this case and the
CPIO shall provide the same information to the present Applicant as he had
been directed to provide to the other Appellant. A copy of our order in the
above case is enclosed.
4. The case 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/2009/000603