PIO informed that there was no tie up of the bank with the builder at anytime - The bank Branch informed that the respondents had a tie up with the builder - CIC: Enquire into the contradiction in reply & intimate the correct position to the complainant
1. The complainant, Shri Kamal Kumar Aggarwal submitted RTI application dated 22.04.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh seeking information regarding the builder of Flat No. B-28 in Green Estate Project – photocopy of the approved map of the project, photocopies of Title Investigation Reports (TIRs), whether the tie up was current in February 2010 when the loan was sanctioned and opinion reports compiled on the directors of the company through four points.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.05.2014 denied information on point 1 and 2 under the provisions of 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 (j) of the RTI Act; on point 3 the complainant was informed that there was no tie up with the builder at anytime and denied information on point 4 u/s 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. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the complainant filed an appeal on 31.05.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 23.05.2014 concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
3. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that the respondents had provided wrong information that there was no tie up with the builder at any time by the SBP. He stated that he had received e-mail dated 12.1.2015 from the SBP, Deara Bassi Branch that the respondents had a tie up with the builder. The information provided by the respondents was contradictory. The respondents stated that the SBP’s branch had directly communicated this information about the tie up to the complainant. They further stated that the bank had sanctioned loan to the builder against property and not for a particular project.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission directs the respondents to enquire into the matter regarding the contradiction in reply and intimate the correct position to the complainant under intimation to the Commission within ten days of receipt of this order.
Citation: Shri Kamal Kumar Aggarwal v. State Bank of Patiala in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/C/2014/000322