Information regarding home loan in which appellant’s mother, i.e., late Smt. V Jain was a guarantor - CIC: Information was related to third party property loan (Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. V Jain), and both are alive; No public activity or interest involved
10 Apr, 2024Information regarding a home loan in which appellant’s mother, i.e., late Smt. Vishwlata Jain was a guarantor - He stated that he was living on the property against which the loan was taken, and he was a legal heir thus, the information sought should be provided to him - CIC: Information was related to the property loan of the third party (Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. Vishwlata Jain), and both are alive; Disclosure had no relationship to any public activity or interest
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.02.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Loosely translated
Copy of application for the said loan
Documents attached with the loan application
Verification report of the documents
Details of instalments paid for the loan
Details of officials who processed the loan application
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
Loosely translated - It is to inform that the information sought by you does not relate to you and is kept by the Bank in fiduciary capacity. It was denied under section 8(1)(e).
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.03.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.04.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.05.2021.
5. The appellant’s advocate Arun Upadhaye and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vipin Sharma, Regional Legal Manager, attended the hearing through video/audio conference.
6. The appellant’s advocate, Arun Upadhaye while reiterating the contents of the RTI application stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfil his purpose. He further submitted that he sought information regarding a home loan in which his mother, i.e., late Smt. Vishwlata Jain was a guarantor. He stated that he was living on the property against which the loan was taken, and he was a legal heir thus, the information sought should be provided to him. He prayed that the CPIO may be directed to provide the information, as sought.
7. The respondent submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 21.03.2022. He further stated that the information sought pertained to the third party, i.e., Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. Vishwlata Jain, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had denied the information under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005, to the appellant vide letter dated 21.03.2022, as they were holding the information in a fiduciary relationship. Perusal of record further reveals that the information sought was related to the property loan of the third party (Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. Vishwlata Jain), and both are alive, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. In addition, the Commission observed that the information sought also attracts section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant’s advocate, Arun Upadhaye during the course of the hearing, failed to bring out any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information which the respondent had denied. In view of this, there appears to be no infirmity with the reply given by the respondent and no public purpose would be served in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
ANANDI RAMALINGAM
Information Commissioner
Citation: Boby Jain v. Bank of Baroda, Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/124890; Date of Decision: 19.01.2024