Central Information Commission
R. K. Singhal vs Stresssed Assets Stabilization Fund ... on 19 March, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SASFD/A/2022/614502
R. K. Singhal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Stressed Assets
Stabilization Fund, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.12.2021 FA : 28.01.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 03.01.2022 FAO : 23.02.2022 Hearing : 12.03.2024
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2021 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "I want to purchase a stress loan account as an investment. Please inform can you settle stressed loan with third party.
(ii) Please provide a list of those companies which took loans from IDBI and now available with SASF for one time settlement and can be settled with third party.
(iii) Please provide an up-to-date list of companies, if any, whose loan account has been sold/settled as OTS with third party i.e. to other than borrower.Page 1 of 3
(iv) Please provide a copy of the trust deed of SASF."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.01.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"(i) - The point under reference is a query from the applicant and as such does not require any information.
(ii), (iii) & (iv) - The sought information is exempted from disclosure u/s 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RRTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.01.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 23.02.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Lalita, Deputy General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the exemption claimed by the respondent is incorrect as SASF has all the information of loan for recovery of stressed outstanding loan. He further stated that he had sought the names of the Companies whose loan accounts were available for settlement and there was no commercial confidence involved in the information sought by him.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the list of companies was prepared by taking into account several strategic and commercial factors including the modes through which accounts were declared NPA. Therefore, the disclosure of the information was exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the information about the stressed accounts were held by them in fiduciary capacity, hence, the details including the names of the companies could not be disclosed to the appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate Page 2 of 3 reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant failed to demonstrate any public interest warranting the disclosure of information under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 14.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, 3rd Floor, IDBI Tower, W.T.C. Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005
2. R. K. Singhal Page 3 of 3