List of defaulters of loan greater than 50 crores as available with RBI etc. - CIC: Queries are general, wide and non-specific without mentioning nomenclature & period; PIO is not supposed to create information; PIO and FAA have not applied their mind

O R D E R

1. The above mentioned second appeals were earlier listed before this Commission on 27.01.2023 wherein the matter was adjourned due to nonappearance of parties.

2. The matters are listed today for further hearing.

Hearing:

3. The appellant bank was represented through Shri Anand Shankar Jha and Shri Arpit Gupta, Advocates who were personally present in the hearing. The respondent, Shri Vinod Kumar, DGM & APIO attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The original RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal was not present despite notice.

4. The representative of the appellant submitted that the CPIO (RBI) issued a notice under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: intended to disclose the information. He further submitted that the relationship of a Bank and its customers is a fiduciary relationship, which is based on trust and confidence. He further submitted that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Further, similar issue has already been pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the petition of the bank are admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

5. The CPIO, during the hearing, reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA and submitted that the information sought by the RTI applicant in his RTI application should be disclosed as per Jayantilal Mistry case. The respondent, during the hearing, submitted that the original RTI applicant has not mentioned the name of bank and time period of which the information was sought from them and per their understanding they have sent notice to the RBL Bank Ltd.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the original RTI applicant has sought information regarding “list of defaulters of loan greater than 50 crores as available with RBI etc.” The Commission further observes that the queries of the appellant is general, wide and non-specific as he has not mentioned that as to what information in terms of nomenclature and period, he is seeking from the respondent. That the RTI applicant expects the CPIO to interpret his queries and search their data placed on records and provide the requested information as desired by him without being specific. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

7. The Commission further observed that the respondent public authority without application of mind has sent notice to RBL Bank Ltd. under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act presuming that the information is related to them. But there is nothing on record which shows that the information sought by the RTI applicant pertains to RBL Bank Ltd.. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO should clearly identify the information and then give response to the RTI applicants rather than giving identical, cryptic replies. The CPIO and the FAA has not applied their mind before disposing the RTI applications of the applicant. The respondent is directed to be careful in future and ensure that RTI applications of the applicants should be dealt with due diligence.

8. In view of this, the orders of the First Appellate Authority are set-aside and no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

9. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr. Sankalp Srivastava (RBL Bank Ltd.) v. Reserve Bank of India, Second Appeal Nos. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/140544 & CIC/RBIND/A/2021/140543; Date : 14-03-2023