Loan sanctioned to a builder including its directors, their spouses, etc. - CIC: Apparent malfeasance while financing the project; Appellant is affected party and has a right to the information sought; Information be made available under public interest

O R D E R

1. The issues arising out of consideration in both the appeals were substantially the same, therefore it was felt desirable by the Commission to pass a common order.

1.1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeals dated 10.01.2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI applications dated 09.08.2021 and first appeals dated 29.09.2021:-

File no. CIC/ UCOBK/A/2022/602682

(i) List of Housing Loan/Mortgage loan/Credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Om Sokhal Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd. including its Directors, their Spouses, office employees, associates, its related parties or group Companies, including the names mentioned below:

1. Ram Gopal Sokhal;

2. Nand Lal Sokhal;

3. Anna Ram;

4. Santosh Devi,

5. Saroj Devi Sokhal;

6. Kartha Ram;

7. Ashu Ram Parajapat;

8. Kanta Devi:

9. Pawan Kumar;

10. Manoj Sokhal

(ii) Above all accounts standard or NPA, if NPA, provide the date on which the account became NPA.

File no. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617

(i) All the documents executed between the UCO Bank and Mrs. Saroj Devi in relation to the loan given to Mrs. Saroj Devi including any affirmation or declaration or any other documents signed by Saroj Devi for the purpose of getting loan.

(ii) Credit appraisal note of Mrs. Saroj Devi.

(iii) Valuation report of the property

(iv) Legal title search report done at the time of loan sanction.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed applications dated 09.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), UCO Bank, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letters dated 01.09.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeals dated 29.09.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide orders dated 16.10.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeals dated 10.01.2022 before the Commission which are under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeals dated 10.01.2022 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO with respect to File no. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682 replied vide letter dated 01.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“You are not the borrower of our Bank and you have sought the information in respect of our borrower M/s Om Sokhal Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. and others as such the information sought by you is related to third person, which comes under fiduciary relationship & personal information and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. As such required information sought by you is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005.”

The CPIO with respect to file no. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617 replied vide letter dated 01.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“You are not the borrower of our Bank and you have sought the information in respect of our borrower Mrs. Saroj Devi as such the information sought by you is related to third person, which comes under fiduciary relationship & personal information and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. As such required information sought by you is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 The FAA vide orders dated 16.10.2021 upheld the replies of the CPIO.

5. The appellant’s husband Shri Tarun Sharma and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pawan Purohit, Chief Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that she had sought information with respect to the Loan/Mortgage loan/Credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Om Sokhal Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd including its directors, their spouses, etc. and all the documents executed between the UCO Bank and Mrs. Saroj Devi in relation to the loan given to Mrs. Saroj Devi including credit appraisal note, valuation report of the property and legal title search report done at the time of loan sanction in file nos. CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682 and CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617 respectively which the respondent denied by claiming exemption under Section 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; 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; and (j) of the RTI Act. She further stated that the bank had given multiple loans to a single person and she wants to know as to how those loans were processed.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought by the appellant related to third party information which had no relation to any public activity and hence the same could not be provided to her under Section 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; 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; and (j) of the RTI Act.

6. 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 claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The case of the appellant was that they were the buyers and there had been multiple loans on the same property by the builders, their relatives and the directors. The buyers including the appellant had also booked one of the flat and because of the apparent malfeasance which had taken place advertently or inadvertently exhibiting lack of due diligence while financing the project as a whole or to the related parties or group industries. The appellant being buyer of one of the flats was not stranger to the subject matter. The objective of the RTI is to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities. The whole episode had raised doubts on the propriety of the public authority i.e. bank in financing the project. It was also brought on record that there were criminal cases and civil cases pending investigation or final judicial pronouncements. The case of the appellant was not redressal of her grievance but only to seek information which was in the custody of the public authority. As already held above, the appellant is affected party and has a right to the information sought. Public interest demanded that the same may be made available as sought by the appellant for bringing transparency and accountability, as the final rights and obligations will be decided by the respected courts or other authorities. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide information within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With above observations and directions, both the appeals are disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Radhika Sharma v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682, &CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617; 05.09.2023