Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00359-SM dated 07.01.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 22.05.2009
Complainant : Shri Shekhar Pathak
Respondent : Union Bank of India
The Complainant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vipin Chandra, Senior Manager (Law, is
present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 7 January
2008 for some information about the loan sanctioned to the Principal of some college
and her partner. Claiming that the CPIO did not provide him the desired information
within the stipulated period, he sent a complaint to the State Information Commission,
Jharkhand on 16 February 2008. That Commission transferred the complaint to the CIC
as the Public Authority against whom the complaint had been made comes under its
jurisdiction.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice. The
Respondent was present and made his submissions. The Respondent drew our attention
to the fact that the CPIO had indeed replied to the Complainant on 24 January 2008,
that is, within the stipulated period and had informed him that the information sought
could not be disclosed as it was covered under Section 8(1) (d) and (j) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. We tend to agree with the views of the CPIO in the matter. The
Complainant had asked about the loans sanctioned to Dr Sumedha Tripathi and Dr RP
Shrivastava, obviously third parties and the details of their loan accounts could not
have been disclosed as such information was held in commercial confidence by the
Bank and the disclosure of such information could adversely affect the competitive
position of those individuals. Such information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure
under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act except where the
disclosure would serve a larger public interest. The Complainant has not made out any
case that the information, if disclosed, would serve any larger public interest and
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00359-SM
therefore the CPIO was right in not disclosing it.
4. Thus, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00359-SM