Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2008/000104 dated 27-06-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 13 November 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Rama Murthy
2059, East End B Main,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 069.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of Travancore,
Head Office,
Thiruvanathapuram.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri George Thomas, CPIO was present.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated June 27,
2008, requested the CPIO for the certified copies of a number of loan
documents concerning two of the Bank’s borrowers. The CPIO wrote back on
July 16, 2008 denying the information on the ground that it was personal
information of third-party borrowers and, therefore, exempt from disclosure
under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this, the
Appellant moved the first Appellate Authority on July 22, 2008. The
Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in his order dated August 14,
2008 in which he upheld the stand of the CPIO. It is against this order that
the Appellant has come to the CIC in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was
present in the Bangalore studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was
present in the Thiruvananthapuram studio. We heard their submissions. We
also carefully examined the details of the information sought. Indeed, the
Appellant had wanted to know about several details including copies of
several documents concerning the loan account of some other customers
which, rightly, the CPIO had denied. The Appellant submitted that all that
CIC/SM/A/2008/000104
he wanted to know was whether the said customers had taken a loan from
the Bank against a certain property or not. The Respondent submitted that
the Appellant himself had stated in his application about the loan taken by
the said customers and, therefore, he was fully aware of the fact that the
Bank had sanctioned a loan. After carefully considering the facts of the
case, we notice that no larger public interest will be served by disclosing
the information sought by the Appellant in this case concerning the loan
account of some other borrowers of the Bank which the Bank holds in
commercial confidence and the disclosure of which can adversely affect the
competitive position of those borrowers. Thus, there is no ground for
interfering with the orders of the CPIO or the first Appellate Authority in
this case.
4. The appeal 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/2008/000104