Information regarding the working capital facilities provided by the Canara Bank
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking details of the working capital facilities provided by the bank to their subsidiary company Enercon India Limited (EIL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the sought information under sections 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; and 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.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the basis of the working capital facility provided by the respondent bank to the entity in question; the documentation provided by the entity to the respondent bank to provide working capital; and the due diligence report of the respondent bank before the sanctioning of working capital to the entity in question. The respondent submitted that there is a dispute between the holding company and a subsidiary company but the connection of the bank is with the subsidiary company whose interest the bank has to protect. The respondent also stated that the bank holds the information on behalf of the subsidiary, which is held in a fiduciary capacity and it would not be right under the RTI Act to provide that information. The respondent further stated that they cannot be expected to part with the due diligence report, which is based on internal processes. The respondent referred to proceedings before the Company Law Board and an earlier decision of the CIC wherein the Commission has held that the issues raised and disposed of in one forum should not be raised in another forum. The appellant stated that the issues which came up before the Company Law Board were quite different from the issues which came up before the Information Commission.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that there is no reason for the Commission to interfere with its earlier decision in the matter. The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the decision of the PIO.
Citation: Shri Vivek A Vashi v. Canara Bank in Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/002903/VS/01765
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1025
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission