Central Information Commission
Manoj Kaknani vs State Bank Of India on 2 February, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637,
CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039
Appellant : Shri Manoj Kaknani,
Gandhidham.
Public Authority : State Bank of India, Kandla
SEZ.
Date of Hearing : 19th January, 2017.
Date of Decision : 30th January, 2017.
Present
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri Yogesh Kumar, Dy.
Manager, SBI,
Gandhidham at CIC.
ORDER
The Commission heard the appellant's instant six appeals on 28th September, 2016 and vide its interim order dated 28th October, 2016 held that "The Commission observes that the information as sought by the appellant in all the six cases i.e. the amount of loan granted by SBI on Survey Nos. 359, 389, 469, 474, 476 at Village Varsamadi Sim, Taluka Anjar and the fifteen builder companies, copies of documents of the plots on which the loans granted e.g. lay out plan, GDA lay out plan without giving the plots numbers and their owners' name, to whom the loan was granted by SBI and the banks on which drawn is inter-related and not quite specific. Moreover, he made allegations against Gandhidham Development Authority not explaining to the bank's role in any particular case. On considering all the six second appeals in question, the Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637, CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, 1 CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039 Commission considers it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the appellant to clarify the information sought and its extent and therefore adjourns the matter to be heard again on a date that will be communicated to both the parties in due course".
2. In pursuance of the aforementioned interim order the matter was heard by the Commission on 19th January, 2017. The appellant was not present. However, the appellant vide his letter dated 17.01.2017 stated that he had put his grounds in the instant six appeals and requested the Commission to pass an appropriate order. The respondents stated that the appellant submitted six RTI applications to various branches of SBI, Kutch Region on the same matter/subject namely Gandhidham Main, Gopalpuri, Anjar , Kandla Port, Kandla SEZ, Oslo branches. The appellant sought similar information from all the branches about details of 15 companies or director of companies such as number of loans sanctioned on particular survey number of the land. The respondent reiterated that the information sought by the appellant fell well within the exemptions of Section 8(1)
(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the appellant had not substantiated any larger public interest or activity and disclosure of information would harm the competitive position of the bank and account details of their customers was held by them in fiduciary capacity. They stated that the customers can take loan from any bank or any branch of the SBI. They further added that for granting house loans, the services of their empanelled valuers were utilized for the purchase of ready made flats and for construction of houses at the plots, the services of valuers was not required.
3. Having considered the submissions of the respondents and perused the relevant records on files, the Commission observes that the appellant had sought information in respect of the amount of loan granted in various survey numbers at Village Varsamadi Sim, Taluka Anjar; copies of documents of the plots on which loans granted e.g. lay out plan, Gandhidham Development Authority (G.D.A) lay out plan, , GDA permission, GDA completion certificate, construction contract Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637, CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, 2 CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039 copy, IT returns, copy of PAN; copies of loan sanctioned by SBI for the plots; the name of officials who had granted loan on the plots; name of the chartered accountant who had certified documents for loan; names of officers and company who had been authorized as valuer by the bank pertained to the customers of the bank, which cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, which is held by the bank in fiduciary relationship, the disclosure of such information to the appellant warrants no larger public interest. Moreover, as per Clause 13 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 the banks are supposed to maintain secrecy of their customers account. The appellant in his second appeals had quoted the proviso of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 "that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person". This issue had been elaborately clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 30.11.2009 in the matter of Union of India Thr. Director Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8396 of 2009 held: "43. A proviso can be enacted by the legislature to serve several purposes. In Sundaram Pillai Vs. Patte Birman (1985) 1 SSC 591 the scope and purpose of a proviso and an explanation has been examined in detail. Normally, a proviso is meant to be an exception to something in the main enactment or to qualify something enacted therein which but for the proviso would be within the purview of the enactment. A proviso cannot be torn apart from the main enactment nor can it be used to qualify and set at naught, the object of the main enactment Sarthi on "Interpretation of Statutes", referred to in the said judgment, states that a proviso is subordinate to the main section and one of the principles which can be applied in a given case is that a proviso would not enlarge an enactment except for compelling reasons. It is unusual to import legislation from a proviso into the body of the statute. But in exceptional cases a proviso in itself may amount to a substantive provision. The proviso in the present case is a guiding factor and not a substantive provision which overrides Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. It does not undo or rewrite Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and does not itself create any new right. The purpose is only to clarify Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637, CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, 3 CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039 that while deciding the question of larger public interest i.e. the question of balance between 'public interest in form of right to privacy' and 'public interest in access to information' is to be balanced".
4. The Commission finds no infirmity in the decision of the respondent authority in all the aforementioned six appeals. However, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the number of loans sanctioned and the total loan amount, branch-wise, to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. All the six appeals are disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Deputy Registrar Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637, CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, 4 CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039 Address of the parties:
Shri Manoj Kaknani, The Central Public Information Officer, C/O Shri Mantivya Bhaskar, State Bank of India, Plot No. 184/184A, DBZ, North Ward Regional Business Office-4, 12-A, Gurudwara Road, Kandla SEZ 370230 Gandhidharm-370201 (Gujarat) Dist. Kachchh (Gujarat) The GM (NW-III)/FAA, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bhadra, Ahmedabad-380001 Case Nos. CIC/MP/A/2016/000267, CIC/MP/A/2016/000551, CIC/MP/A/2016/000637, CIC/MP/A/2016/001024, 5 CIC/MP/A/2016/001025, CIC/MP/A/2016/001039