Copies of sanction letters and NOC given to a company by bank for donating a land on pledge of certain TDR denied u/s 8(1)(e) - CIC: respondent to undertake action u/s 11(1) for obtaining the submission of the third party regarding disclosure
29 Oct, 2013ORDER
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 31.5.2012 seeking (i) copies of sanction letters dated 7.10.2010 and 27.11.2010; (ii) information regarding NOC to be given to M/s. RKSK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. for donating 1555 Sq. Mtrs of land on pledge of TDR of Rs.26.82 lakhs.; and (iii) copy of site map prepared by M/s. Sanin Architects. The CPIO, while providing information on third point on 16.7.2012, denied the information on first two points under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act 2005..
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 9.8.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of PIO on 4.9.2012 stating that no larger public interest is involved in the matter for disclosure of the information. The appellant approached the Commission on 5.10.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 31.5.2012 and stated that the CPIO’s reply of 16.7.2012 provided him only part information, but the relevant part of the information has been denied under the exemption from disclosure clause of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent stated that the RTI application was responded to taking into account that the appellant was not connected with the loan account of a certain party in respect of which the information was being sought. Hence the information was denied under section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act. The respondent, by way of background, explained that this was a major loan account in which three banks were involved in consortium lending in which the respondent bank was the lead bank wherein a large piece of land measuring about 18000 Sq. Mtrs. was involved.
6. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking copies of the sanction letters of the loan and a copy of the NOC from the bank pertaining to a request made by the loan account holder. The respondent stated that the account holder had sought to donate a part of that land and it was in this context that the NOC from the bank was asked. The respondent stated that as per the decision taken in the bank, the bank had sent a response to the account holder to deposit further fixed deposits or some other collateral security. The respondent explained that this is entirely a matter between the bank and the account holder and that there was no question of any public interest. The respondent said that in so far as copy of the site plan was concerned which the appellant had asked, that was provided.
7. The appellant stated that they are connected with this matter because it is their organization to whom the account holder had donated 1555 Sq. Mtrs of land for some charitable and community purposes. The appellant stated the account holder had proceeded with the donation and a temple has already been built and it is in this context that they had sought the information. The appellant stated that they also have a letter dated 10.2.2011 from the account holder through which he had deposited a cash security of Rs.26.82 lakhs.
8. The appellant explained that they are now interested in the matter because they have implemented the project including building of a temple and are now using the land as per the objectives of the trust, but now it is important for the trust to get the proprietary right in the land. The appellant explained that in the meanwhile, the loan account has become NPA and that the bank has already undertaken action under the SARFAESI Act as per the DRT process. These facts were confirmed by the respondent during the hearing.
9. The respondent explained that the appellant is seeking a copy of the NOC which the respondent had given to the account holder. The respondent stated that they were reluctant to give it because that pertains to the original loan account holder who was customer of the bank and to whom the respondent bank had given the credit facility. The respondent explained that from the bank’s point of view, this is a case of fiduciary relationship and what the account holder does with any other party is not the concern of the bank.
Decision
10. The respondent is directed to undertake action, in context of the RTI application, under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act for obtaining the submission of the third party with regard to disclosure of information. Compliance must be done within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Pawan Goyal v. Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001598/04996