Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00475-SM dated 20.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 01.01.2009
Appellant : Shri Ved Prakash Sharma
Respondent : Syndicate Bank
The Appellant is present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri P. N. Malhotra, Deputy General
Manager and PIO is present.
The Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO in his letter dated 06.08.2007
seeking a number of information in respect of the housing loan account of one
Smt. Neelam Joshi. The CPIO, in his reply dated 20.08.2007, declined to provide
the information on the ground that it was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the
Right to Information Act being in the nature of commercial confidence/trade
secret concerning a third party. He also referred to the prohibition imposed on
disclosure of such information under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970. The Appellant filed an appeal against this
denial before the Appellate Authority in his appeal dated 30.08.2007. The
Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 24.09.2007 and upheld
the decision of the CPIO in denying the information. The Appellant has now
approached this Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant submitted that he had a personal stake
in this matter as the land against which the housing loan had been sanctioned by
the Bank was jointly held by the Appellant and Smt. Neelam Joshi and others and
that the competent authorities in the State Government had already canceled the
permissions given to Smt. Neelam Joshi for constructing any house on this land.
He argued that since the competent authorities had canceled the permission
given, the loan sanctioned by the Bank on the basis of those documents had
become to her questionable and, hence, he was entitled to get information in
regard to this loan. The Respondents argued that the loan account pertained to a
third party and the Bank held the details of that account as commercial
confidence and, therefore, could not divulge the details of this account as exempt
under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act to the Appellant. It is an admitted fact that
the information sought pertains to a third party. The Section 8(1) (d), however
reads as follows:
“Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”
4. The above provision clearly protects information which is in the nature of
commercial confidence or trade secret the disclosure of which would harm the
competitive position of a third party. But it must be noted that it is also clearly
mentions that if the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest
warrants the disclosure of such information, such information should be
disclosed and provided. In this case, the Appellant had produced copies of the
documents issued by competent authority in the Municipal Corporation of
Shimla as well as the Revenue Department of the State Government of Himachal
Pradesh withdrawing/canceling the permission granted for construction of the
said piece of land and the mutation made in favour of the third party. To the
extent that such permission by the Municipal Corporation for construction and
such mutation by the competent Revenue Authority formed the basis of the loan
granted by the Bank, the cancellation of such permission and mutation renders
the loan irregular. A larger public interest is obviously involved in this case as the
Bank as a Public Authority has a larger responsibility to manage its funds
judiciously and following prudential norms. If the loan is found to have been
sanctioned on irregular records and documents, the Bank owes it to the public to
disclose the wrong, if any, even if this amounts to disclose of information
pertaining to a third party as such disclosure would serve a larger public interest,
namely, transparency and adherence to rules in Banking transactions.
5. We, therefore, direct the Appellate Authority in the Bank to scrutinize the
records provided by the Appellant in proof of the cancellation of the permission
for construction and mutation in favour of the third party and if he finds that the
loan had been granted against those documents which now stand nullified, he
should ensure the disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant within
30 working days from the receipt of this order.
6. The Appellant would be free to approach this Commission again if he is
still not satisfied with the decision of the Appellate Authority.
7. With these direction, we dispose off this appeal. 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.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar