Information regarding loan taken by two individuals as co-borrowers was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (j) despite NOC from one of them - CIC remanded the matter to PIO to pass a speaking order, explaining the rules in respect of co-borrowers

Facts

1. The appellant, Shri Braj Kishore Prasad, submitted RTI application dated 20 December 2012 before the Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Ranchi; seeking information regarding loan taken by Shri V P Sinha & Dr. Rupa Prasad etc., through a total of 7 points.

2. Vide reply dated 1 January 2013, CPIO denied the information u/s 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; & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 15 January 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) and he had also submitted the NOC from one of the a/c holders Dr. Rupa Prasad. Vide order dated 23 February 2013, FAA denied the information on the ground that the said loan a/c was in name of Dr. Vijay Pratap Sinha & Ms. Rupa Prasad but consent of only one borrower had been submitted by the appellant and he also upheld the CPIO’s decision. Not satisfied with the FAA’s reply; the appellant again approached him vide his appeal dated 14 May 2013 but once again the FAA vide his order dated 28 May 2013, reiterated his earlier stand only.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the CPIO had denied the information by invoking 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; and (j) of the RTI Act, inspite of the NOC from one of the co-borrowers having been provided i.e. his daughter Ms. Rupa Prasad. The respondents reiterated that they cannot divulge the information to the appellant unless both the borrowers give their consent. The respondent further added that in case Ms. Rupa Prasad wants the information and applies for the same that can be provided to her.

5. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, the Commission remands the matter to the CPIO with directions to pass a speaking order, explaining the rules/ procedures of the bank in respect of co-borrowers. The CPIO will comply with the directions within fifteen days of receipt of receipt of Commission’s order.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner                

Citation: Shri Braj Kishore Prasad v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001531/MP