Central Information Commission
Mrs K Bansal vs State Bank Of India on 19 February, 2015
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New
Delhi110066
websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001005
Appellant : Shri S.K. Bansal,
Delhi.
Public Authority: State Bank of India, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 17th February, 2015
Date of Decision : 19th February, 2015
Present :
Appellant : Not
present.
Respondent : Shri Sunil
Dutt Awasthi, AGM/CPIO in person.
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri S.K. Bansal, submitted RTI application dated 15.03.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, New Delhi seeking information relating to all the allottees of dwelling units in Rail Vihar, Kundli/Sonepat (Haryana) i.e. total amount of home loan availed by the allottees from Parliament Street, New Delhi Branch and also from other branches; total number of home loan/housing loan accounts involved and list of all the documents submitted by the allottees for availing the home loan/housing loan.
2. Aggrieved with non-receipt of response from the CPIO the appellant preferred first appeal on 28.04.2014 before the FAA. The FAA also did not adjudicate on the appellant's first appeal.
3. Thereafter the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant did not attend the hearing inspite of a written hearing notice having been sent to him. The respondent CPIO stated that the RTI application was addressed to the CPIO, SBI, Parliament Street, which was received from the SBI, (NW-I), New Delhi on 20.5.2014. The CPIO, vide letter dated 6.6.2014, denied information under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the public authority. The FAA vide his order dated 12.8.2014 held that the information sought by the appellant was of statistical nature, the same could be provided to the appellant. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide suitable reply/information on point 1 and 2 to the appellant, if available. The information sought on point 3 was considered to be a matter of commercial confidence/trade secrets, disclosure of which would harm Bank's interest and exempt from disclosure CIC/MP/A/2014/001005 1 u/s 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the Housing loan proposals are sourced by different Branches and Housing Loan Sales Team (HLST) in Delhi and the proposals are sent to Retail Assets Centralized Processing Centre (RACPC) for processing/sanction/disbursement of loan. The loan proposals are processed, sanctioned and disbursed by the concerned RACPC. Loan documents remain in the custody of the RACPCs. There are different RACPCs in Delhi (like RACPC Central Delhi, RACPC, Janakpuri, RACPC Rohini, RACPC Faridabad etc). SBI does not keep the detail of housing loan proposals project/builder-wise. Therefore, any attempt of collecting the information from various sources would result in disproportionate diversion of resources at their end.
5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the CPIO and FAA disposed of appellant's application under the provisions of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay had observed that "The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties." No action is called for on the part of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 011-26105027 CIC/MP/A/2014/001005 2 Address of the parties:
Shri Satish Kumar Bansal, 86/10, Onkar Nagar B, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035.
The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.
The General Manager (NW-I), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.CIC/MP/A/2014/001005 3