Respondent: Board resolution may contain special interest rates etc. giving details of which would harm their competitive position - CIC: provide copy of the Board Meetings after severing the information containing commercial confidence

ORDER

Case No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000228:

1. The appellant, Shri Harinder Dhingra, submitted RTI application dated 04.08.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, HO, New Delhi seeking information on four points regarding recovery of Rs.2066.46 crores with further interest from M/s. Surya Vinayak –

(1) copies of all records, documents, note sheets etc relating to placing of proposal of credit sanction to the said company;

(2) records, reports, minutes of Board of Directors meeting of PNB in which the case of credit sanction were discussed/sanctioned to the company;

(3) records, documents relating to placing of proposal of recovery of huge amount of credit and

(4) Minutes of Board of Directors meeting of PNB in which the recovery of huge amounts due from the company were discussed, plan of action approved to recover the amount from the company.

1.2. Aggrieved with non-receipt of response, the appellant filed first appeal on 10.9.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order dated 1.10.2013 observed that the CPIO had sent his decision vide his letter dated 13.09.2013 and directed the CPIO to once again provide a copy of his reply to the appellant. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.09.2013 informed the appellant that the information sought for related to third party and information held with PNB in fiduciary capacity and that there appeared that no larger public interest, which warranted the disclosure of the information, hence the same was exempt from disclosure 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; , (j), and (e) of the RTI Act.

1.3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.

Case No.CIC/MP/A/2014/000230

2.1. The appellant, Shri Harinder Dhingra, submitted RTI application dated 01.08.2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, HO, New Delhi seeking information on five points regarding recovery of Rs. 2066.46 crores with further interest from M/s. Surya Vinayak –

(1) copies of all records, documents, note sheets etc relating to sanctioning of loan to the company;

(2) copies of note sheets, records, reports relating to application made by the company for availing the credit facilities from PNB;

(3) copies of records, documents, note sheets relating to sanction letters for credit issued by PNB,

(4) Copies of all records, documents, note sheets the Branch had with Regional Office/Zonal Office for credit issued by PNB, and

(5) copies of documents, note sheets, etc. the Regional Office/Zonal Office had with the Head Office of PNB for credit issued by the bank to the company since its inception.

2.2. Aggrieved with non-receipt of response, the appellant filed first appeal on 10.9.2013 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order dated 1.10.2013 observed that the CPIO had sent his decision vide his letter dated 13.09.2013 and directed the CPIO to once again provide a copy of his reply to the appellant. The CPIO vide CIC/MP/A/2014/000228 & CIC/MP/A/2014/0200230 letter dated 13.09.2013 informed the appellant that the information sought for related to third party and information held with PNB in fiduciary capacity and there appeared that no larger public interest, which warranted the disclosure of the information, hence the same is exempt from disclosure 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; , (j), and (e) of the RTI Act. 2.3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.

3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the CPIO had denied 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; , (j), and (e) of the RTI Act. In this regard the appellant quoted that the Commission vide its order dated 16.9.2009 in the matter of Prafulla Kar Vs. United Bank of India in case No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00946 & SM/A/2008/00015 allowed disclosure of copy of the instrument signed between the Bank and the ASREC for assigning the NPA loan account of M/s. EMFA. The respondents on the other hand quoted decision of the Commission in case No,. CIC/AT/A/2010/000946/DS/VS/4270 dated 5.8.2013 in the matter of Shri Kishanlal Mittal Vs. SBI in which the Commission denied information pertaining to Board Meetings of the bank 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; of the RTI Act. They stated that the Board resolution may contain special interest rates etc. giving details of which would harm their competitive position. The respondents further added that they had filed a suit before the DRT for the recovery of the said loan.

4. Having heard the submissions of both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide copy of the relevant Board Meetings after severing the information containing commercial confidence, regarding the sanction of loan and recovery resolution or order to the appellant. The CPIO is also directed to provide copy of the suit filed before the DRT in this regard along with copy of loan application from M/s. Surya Vinayak, if it is attached with the suit filed before the DRT. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. These appeals are disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Harinder Dhingra v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000228 & No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000230