Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/01162-SM dated 23-04-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 24 August 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Sanjay Khemka,
Human Rights of Bombay,
604, Lourdes Heritage,
Orlem Malad, West Mumbai-400021.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Union Bank of India,
Head Office, 239,
Vidhan Bhavan Marg,
Mumbai-400021.
The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present
(i) Shri R.K.Gupta, Chief Manager (Law),
(ii) Shri. Gopal Panda, CPIO
The brief facts of the case are under.
2. The Complainant had, in his application dated April 23, 2008,
requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the details of a
loan sanctioned by their Mulund West Branch to one Mumbai Gold Cabs
Private Limited. The CPIO, it seems, did not reply to him within the
stipulated period. He had sent an appeal to the first Appellate Authority
who passed an order on the appeal on June 18, 2008 and disposed it of by
endorsing the decision of the CPIO in denying the information sought as
third-party information. The Complainant has approached the CIC against
the denial of information.
3. The case was heard through videoconferencing. The Complainant was
not present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Mumbai
studio of the NIC and we heard his submissions. It is a fact that the
Complainant had asked for several details about the loan sanctioned to a
third-party customer and such information could not have been disclosed at
CIC/PB/A/2008/01162-SM
the exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. However, we find that his queries at serial number 3,
4, 6 and 10 do not amount to any information in the nature of commercial
confidence but are about various administrative and policy details which
cannot be withheld from the Complainant. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to
provide to the Complainant within 10 working days from receipt of this
order the relevant information including copies of supporting documents, if
any on the above four queries.
4. Since it has been alleged that the CPIO did not provide the desired
information within the stipulated period, we would like him to explain in
writing within 15 working days from the receipt of this order the reasons for
not responding to the Complainant’s request for which act he can be
penalised under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act with a
maximum penalty up to Rs 25,000. If we do not receive any written
explanation from the CPIO within the above time-limit, we will proceed to
decide on the imposition of penalty ex parte.
5. With the above directions, the complaint is disposed off.
6. 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/PB/A/2008/01162-SM