Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Section 8 in The Information Technology Act, 2000
The Right To Information Act, 2005
The Information Technology Act, 2000

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Central Information Commission
Shri Om Prakash Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 13 July, 2009
                        Central Information Commission
             Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/00678-SM dated 16.12.2008
               Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)

                                                          Dated:    13 July 2009

Name of the Appellant             :   Shri Om Prakash Kapoor,
                                      F-4, Jangpura Extension,
                                      Mandir Marg, 1st Floor,
                                      New Delhi - 110 014.

Name of the Public Authority      :   CPIO, State Bank of India,
                                      Local Head Office,
                                      11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

      The Appellant was present in person.

      On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
      (i)     Shri Anil Kumabahed, Manager
      (ii)    Shri S.K. Rana, Chief Manager

      The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 16 December 2008 for a number of information regarding the account of one Shakti Udyog, a borrower from the Bank. The CPIO replied on 7 January 2009 and denied the information on the ground that not only was it held in a fiduciary relationship but also it involved commercial confidence of a third party and therefore such information was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, he sent an appeal to the Appellate Authority on 3 February 2009. The Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated 21 February 2009 and dismissed it holding that there was no error in the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in second appeal.

3. Both the parties were present and made their submissions. Admittedly, the Appellant had asked for information with regard to the various aspects of a loan of a certain borrower named Shakti Udyog with which he had no direct CIC/SM/A/2009/00678-SM connection except that he had entered into an agreement to purchase a plot of land owned by one of the proprietors of the said account and mortgaged to the Bank. The Appellant submitted that as per the agreement, he had already deposited a substantial part of the loan dues in the relevant court where the recovery suit had been filed by the Bank and was willing to pay the remaining amount of the decree provided the Bank gave him the information. To this, the Respondent submitted that the entire matter of this loan was before the court and that on the petition of the Appellant himself, the Hon'ble High Court had already directed the Bank not to release land records to anyone and, therefore, the information sought could not be provided to the Appellant, being a third party and without any authorisation from the actual borrower. The CIC has consistently held that the loan account details of a borrower are held by the Bank in commercial confidence and unless there is any larger public interest to be served, such details are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. We are afraid the Appellant has not brought forward any convincing argument to show that the disclosure of this information would serve any larger public interest. He cannot get the information as it is about the loan account details of a third party borrower of the Bank.

4. The appeal is, thus, disposed of.

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/2009/00678-SM