Appellant requested for all documents submitted by Ms Roshni Purwar for taking a bank loan - Respondent assured to look into the matter to see if the appellant was a guarantor / witness in any of those & to provide the same - CIC: Provide the information

ORDER

1. Shri Praveen Kumar Purwar, vide his RTI application dated 26.6.2015, sought to find out whether Ms Roshni Purwar had taken loan for opening of computer centre, whether she had returned the loan and the certified copy of the documents submitted by her at the time of taking loan.

2. Vide his reply dated 21.7.2015, the CPIO denied information as it was personal information of the third party and held by them in fiduciary capacity treating it exempt 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. and 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who upheld the CPIO’s decision. Aggrieved with the denial of information, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the request for information as made in his RTI application.

3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had not been provided any information and, therefore, the purpose of RTI Act was not served. He reiterated his request for all documents submitted by Ms Roshni Purwar for taking loan and whether the loan account had been closed. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought information relating to one Ms Roshni Purwar and it was third party information and they had appropriately denied it to the appellant, keeping the provisions of the RTI Act in view. On a query by the Commission as to the reason of his seeking third party information, the appellant stated that the borrower had enclosed a copy of the agreement /documents for purchase of land which he had witnessed. On hearing the appellant, the respondents assured to look into the matter to see if the appellant was a guarantor or witness in any of those and to provide the same.

4. On hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide copies of documents as assured while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Praveen Kumar Purwar v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/002049