The correspondence with RBI regarding the appellants sick company was denied claiming that reports with regard to NPA is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Inspection with respect to appellants account permitted severing any third party information u/s 10
1. The appellant, Shri Rajinder Singh, submitted RTI application dated 3 January 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Patiala, New Delhi seeking information regarding the account of M/s Priya Clay Products Pvt. Ltd. The Company had been granted various credit facilities including term loan and working capital. He wanted copies of show cause notice sent by the bank to the Company directors and guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India and followed by State Bank of Patiala, correspondence showing revival efforts to arrest the sickness in the company, Techno Economic Viability studies, names of officers responsible for delay in disbursing the term loan etc., through a total of 19 points.
2. Vide reply dated 6 February 2013 & 15 February 2013, the CPIO furnished the information sought on a number of points. Not satisfied with the decision of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated 7 March 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the CPIO wrongly denied the information. Again vide reply dated 11 April 2013, the CPIO responded to the rest of the points with respect to information sought by the appellant. No final order has been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The respondent submitted that the correspondence with RBI cannot be given to appellant and information with reference to other points has been already furnished to the appellant vide their reply dated 11.4.2013 except point 15 & 16, wherein the appellant had sought information of reports/returns with regard to NPA which is exempted u/s 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; of the RTI Act, 2005 being in the nature of commercial confidence.
5. The Commission finds that information with respect to other points has been furnished to the appellant except points 15 & 16. The appellant is allowed to do inspection with respect to his account in reference to information sought at point 15 & 16 severing any third party information. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Rajinder Singh v. State Bank of Patiala in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001661/MP