Reasons for not sanctioning the loan - based on Techno Economic Valuation, the bank sanctioned only a partial loan - TEV is a confidential document - CIC: specific point wise reasons for not sanctioning the full loan amount to be provided
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 04.04.2012 seeking copies of certain reports for sanctioning of certain loans.
2. The PIO responded on 25.04.2012 and denied information to the appellant on grounds that these are study reports which are internal documents with copyright provision. The appellant filed a first appeal on 02.05.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 23.05.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 18.08.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 04.04.2012 and stated that he wants to know the reasons why the bank is not sanctioning the loan that he has applied for. The appellant by way of background stated that he was a retired technical person who after retirement wants to do something useful and set up an enterprise. It was in this light that he had sought a loan from the bank. But the bank is willing to give him part of the money that he had applied for, though he wants the full amount.
5. The appellant stated that his RTI application seeks information from the bank about the reasons why the bank has not sanctioned him the full quantum of the loan that he has applied for.
6. The respondent stated that the appellant had applied for a loan of about Rs.3 crores. The respondent explained that Rs. 3 crores included both the term loan and the working capital. It was explained by the respondent that as per the bank procedure a Techno Economic Valuation (TEV) was done. After consideration of that the bank decided to give a loan of about Rs. 2 crores as against the sought Rs.3crores. The respondent stated that the appellant is insisting on getting the TEV report which is a confidential document in the bank use. The respondent said that this document comes under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act, hence they are reluctant to part with the document.
7.The appellant stated that his main thrust is to know from the bank about the specific reasons why he has not been given the full loan. The appellant said that there is no reason why the bank should not provide him the reasons explaining why the full amount has not been sanctioned.
8. What emerged during the hearing was that it would be appropriate for the specific pointwise reasons for not sanctioning the full loan amount to be provided by the respondent to the appellant.
9. The respondent is directed to provide, within 30 days of this order, to the appellant the information sought in para 8 above. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri G.Muniratnam v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001120/04181