Communication between ECGC and SBI in respect of appellants industrial unit was denied u/s 8(1)(d), (e) & (j) - Appellant: copies of correspondence between ECGC and SBI needed to know why he has been placed in the negative list - CIC: denial upheld
11 Mar, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, has submitted RTI application dated 29 September 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Stress Assets Management Branch, Bhopal; seeking information relating to the transaction / communication between the ECGC and SBI Commercial Branch Bhopal in respect of M/s Shri Adishwar Oils & Fats Limited through total of 08 points.
2. Vide CPIO order dated 20 October 2012, CPIO denied the information sought under 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; 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; ,(e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also informed the appellant that the information sought at Sr. No.1,2,5 and the information sought for the period 200405, 200506, 200607 at Sr. No.6 was not available on record. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 25 October 2012 to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 17 November 2012, upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Dilip Shrishrimal, made submission telephonically. The respondents, Ms Sudha Radhakrishnan, Sh. H.K. Srivastava, Sh. Dev Dutt Sen and Sh. L.R. Mehar made submissions from Mumbai and Bhopal.
5. The appellant submitted that it is necessary for him to get copies of correspondence between ECGC of India and the State Bank of India to know as to why he has been placed in the negative list. The appellant submitted that the information sought in terms of the correspondence are related to appellant’s Company only and hence, he is related to such case and is not a third party.
6. The CPIO submitted that the information sought regarding the correspondence between Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd and State Bank of India are confidential information and exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(e), 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; 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 Section 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, 2005. It was further submitted that the present matter is pending before the Bombay High Court.
7. Information sought is in the nature of private contract between the SBI and Insurance Cover Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd.
Decision Notice
8. The Commission upholds the decision of CPIO/FAA in the present case as the disclosure of information i.e. correspondence between Export Credit Guarantee Corp. of India Ltd and State Bank of India are confidential information and thus exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (e), Section 8 (1) (d) and Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. 9. The Commission would further like to add its previous observation in a similar case no. CIC/SS/A/2012/002131 dated: 22.01.2013. The CIC has observed that:
“…In so far as providing copies of correspondence between ECGC and the insured Bank is concerned, the Commission vide its order dated 21.9.2011 in an identical petition filed by Smt. Seema Newar Vs. ECGC (Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/000704) held as follows: “The ECGC performs many functions such as providing a range of credit risk insurance cover to exporters against loss in export of goods and services, offers guarantees to banks and financial institutions to enable exporters to obtain better facilities from them and provides Overseas Investment Insurance to Indian Companies investing in joint ventures abroad in the form of equity or loan. The premium or any amount received by the ECGC from the Bank of Rajasthan under the insurance contract is information which is only privy to the parties to the contract of insurance. As an insurer to banks, the ECGC offers guarantees to banks and financial institutions to enable exporters to obtain better facilities from them. As an insurer to exporters, the ECGC offers insurance protection to exporters against payment risk, provides guidance in exportrelated activities, makes available information on different countries with its own credit ratings, makes it easy to obtain export finance from banks/financial institutions, assists exporters in recovering bad debts and provides information on creditworthiness of overseas buyers. Thus, the contract of insurance entered between ECGC and the Banks is entirely different from the one entered between the ECGC and the exporters. Clearly, the information which is part of the insurance contract entered into between ECGC and the Bank of Rajasthan is privy only to these parties and not to the appellant.”
9. In ratio with the aforementioned decision of the Commission, the correspondence between ECGC and Bank, as sought for by the appellant at Point No. 1 and 2 his RTI application, is exempted 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; 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; & (e) of the RTI Act. Hence, in light of the above observations, the present appeal is dismissed and Case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Dilip Shrishrimal v.SBI in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000154/MP