Information regarding the internal communication of Bank regarding Sarda brothers was denied u/s 8(1)(d), (e) & (j) - Respondent: Repeated attempt made to get this information through different people filing different RTI applications - CIC: Denial upheld
1. The appellant as constituent attorney and one of the directors of M/s Pennar Trading Pvt. Ltd., M/s Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.; M/s Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Santosh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. submitted RTI application dated May 22, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Kolkata; seeking copy of communication made between Mr. Sarkar on behalf of AGM and the legal cell of the SBI, Overseas Branch, Kolkata mentioning the disputes between the Sarda Brothers viz. Govind Sarda, Ghanshyam Sarda and Jagdish Sarda w.r.t. sanction of the loan in favour of above mentioned 4 companies etc.; through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide letters dated June 20, 2014; the CPIO informed the appellant that entire loan accounts of these companies had been closed on 26.2.2010 and denied the information sought u/s 8(1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO's reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated July 11, 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated August 7, 2014; the FAA upheld the CPIO's decision.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present during the hearing in spite of a notice for hearing having been sent to him. The respondents submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding their internal communication mentioning the family dispute of Sarda Brothes who was their constituent and the appellant had no relation with the information sought for; therefore, they had denied the information u/s 8(1)(d),(e)&(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the information sought for involved commercial confidence, personal information of third party held by them in fiduciary capacity. They also stated that the above mentioned four companies had tried to get this information on two previous occasions through different people; one in the year 2010 through one Shri Mahendra Sarswat and in the year 2014 through Ms. Shelly Banerjee which had come up in this Commission in case no. CIC/DS/A/2012/000558/MP and the Commission had denied the same information to her for the want of her locus standi. The appellant was not present to point out any short comings in the respondents’ submissions.
5. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the respondents’ decision denying the third party information under the provisions contained in the RTI Act, 2005 u/s 8(1) (d)(e)&(j) as no larger public interest had been established by the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Chainroop Pugalia v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002235