Certified copy of housing and car loan accounts – PIO: denied u/s 8(1)(j) - appellant alleged that wrong rate of interest has been charged – CIC: inspection of relevant file and calculation sheet to be done
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 14.12.2011 seeking documents/ papers and certified copies of certain housing and car loan accounts.
2. The PIO responded on 03.03.2012 and provided to the appellant part information and denied the remaining under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 26.03.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 28.04.2012 and directed the CPIO to look into the reasons for the delay in providing information. The appellant filed a second appeal on 28.04.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 14.12.2011 and stated that he had sought information from the respondent bank both about the housing loan and car loan taken from the bank.
5. The appellant stated that the respondent's letters, i.e., the CPIO’s reply dated 03.03.2012 and the FAA letter of 28.04.2012 are evasive and avoid giving him the information. The appellant stated that wrong rate of interest has been charged from him.
6. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.
7. It will be appropriate for the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the file and provide calculation sheet.
8. The respondent is directed to enable the appellant, within 30 days of this order, to inspect the file and provide photo copies of the relevant documents along with the calculation sheets. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Shahu Gaikwad v. State Bank of Hyderabad in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001019/04043