Central Information Commission
Bhagirathsinh R Rathod vs State Bank Of India on 26 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/154872
Bhagirathsinh R Rathod ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
SBI, REGION-2, RBO, 2ND
FLOOR, SHIV SHAKTI COMPLEX,
MORBI- WAKANER NATIONAL
HIGHWAY-8/A, MORBI-363642. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2023
Date of Decision : 22/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08/08/2022
CPIO replied on : 20/08/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/09/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 04/10/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.08.2022 seeking the following information:1
"I have been accused of facilitating fraud in SBI Halvad Branch Loan Accounts, as follows:
1. Loan acc. No 37131319195 of Applicant Hari bhai Ramesh Kariya.
2. Loan acc. No 36886167655 of Applicant Rajesh bhai Kantilal Kotecha.
3. Loan acc. No 36986175687 of Applicant Harshad bhai Ramesh bhai Kariya.
SBI has filed a police complaint against me in the above matter, and I am under threat of being taken into custody by the police.
With reference to the above matter, please provide me the following information in certified copies:
1. Kindly provide certified copy of entire file-noting including pre sanction record, loan eligibility calculation, post sanction record and all subsequent file-noting (till date) in the above Loan Accounts
2. Kindly provide certified copy of all file-noting and bank records where report of Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod has been used in the loan procedure in the above Loan Accounts
3. Kindly provide certified copy of all file-noting and bank records indicating that there is no construction on the land in above loan accounts
4. Kindly provide certified copy of all communication between SBI Halvad Branch, SBI Morbi Regional Office, SBI Rajkot Zonal Office, SBI Ahmedabad Local Head Office, SBI bombay Head Office, Indian Bank Association & Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod, including all annexures, regarding Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod in reference to the above Loan Accounts, including instruction / recommendation to de-panel / black list / addition to Caution List of IBA / notice to valuer to explain / personal hearing / any other matter, along with copy of all applicable file-notings.
5. Kindly provide a certified copy of letter sent by SBI to IBA for adding the name of Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod to the IBA Caution List, including all relevant file notings, including all annexures.
6 Kindly provide details of any loan accounts of SBI, other than the above three loan accounts, where Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod has been found to 2 be involved in facilitating fraud / providing false reports /issues have been reported regarding the quality of service of Valuer Bhagirathsinh Rathod."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 20.08.2022 stating as under:
"Point no. 1 to 4:
The information sought pertains to an ongoing investigation by police, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 i.e., information which would impede the proof of investigation or prosecution of offenders.
Point no. 5:
The information sought contains information of commercial confidence, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005.i.e. information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property.
Point no. 6:
The Information sought pertains to third party and is held by the Bank in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which is exempted under section 8(1) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.09.2022. FAA's order, dated 04.10.2022, concurs with the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with denial of information, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the following grounds -
"Bhagirathsinh Rathod, is empaneled valuer of SBL Bank falsely alleged my role in facilitation of fraud in three loan cases in Halvad, and filed FIR, removed from panel, as well as reported my name (as well as that of four other valuers who are not connected to this valuation in any way) in Caution List maintained by Indian Banking Association (lBA), leading to all my client banks stopping work of all the five valuers.
Bank did not look at the facts of the case, and neither allowed me the chance of personal hearing (as stipulated) before taking the harsh actions. This is 3 supported by the Stay order granted by Hon'ble Gujarat High court staying depanelment and reporting to IBA in the said matter (Copy annexed).
I filed RTI application with SBI requesting for documents pertaining to the three loan cases, which are denied to me citing exceptions under various subsections of Section 8(1) All the grounds of exceptions are totally baseless and in fact mere denial of information disguised as exception.
It is pertinent to state that the valuations prepared by me for the properties were made after the loan disbursement, and not accepted by bank, or used anywhere in funding process. No fees were paid to the undersigned. All the same, I was wrongly arraigned in the case by SBI, and that too without following any due procedure of law and natural justice.
I sought information related to the said loan cases, invoking life and liberty clause, but the information was rejected as above, which is contrary to the law, as detailed in pt 8.l below.
The decision of the CPIO has been upheld by the FAA, citing additional grounds of Section 8(1)(d),8(1)(e), and 8(1)(j), which are all baseless, as detailed in pt g.2 below..."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Pankaj Kumar, AGM & CPIO present through video-conference.
The written submissions filed by the Appellant and the Respondent prior to the hearing are taken on record.
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his instant Appeal as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. He further stated that information has been wrongly denied by the CPIO under the garb of Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act ignoring the fact that the investigation before the police authorities has been finalized way back.
The CPIO while reiterating the averred reply submitted that the Appellant has sought the internal information in the form of note sheets, etc. of third party borrowers which is hit by Section 8(1)(e) , 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. He further 4 clarified the factual aspect that the Appellant being the valuer of the bank was de- panelled on the ground of hiding some substantial facts from the SBI.
The Appellant interjected to contest the fact that as regards the response of CPIO against point no. 6 is concerned, it was totally contradictory as is evident from the fact that in impugned RTI Application, information was denied to him while in response to another RTI application, the CPIO claimed non-availability of such records.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records is in agreement with the denial of the information by the CPIO in the instant case under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information is available with the Respondent authority in a fiduciary capacity and it also contains the elements of personal information of third party borrowers disclosure of which may apparently invades their privacy. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which is as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(e)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;
xxx "....(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;.."
In this regard, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgement of division bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay, (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) dated 09.08.2011 wherein the 5 Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dwelled over the meaning and import of the term ''fiduciary" and held as under:
'21. The term `fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and condour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term `fiduciary relationship' is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party....' '22.....But the words `information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer...' (Emphasis Supplied) Further, as far as denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act is concerned, the same is in lines with a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been 6 exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
In addition to above, the Commission also cannot lose sight of the fact the nature of documents sought for by the Appellant in the RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, as well. Relevant extract of Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act is reproduced below for ready reference -
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
Here, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 13/12/20012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] has held that section 8(1)(g) can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It was further held in para 30 of the decision that:
7"Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act."
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Appellant is advised to pursue his grievance through an appropriate administrative channel.
Lastly, in the spirit of RTI Act, the CPIO is directed to share a copy of his latest written submission free of charge with the Appellant immediately upon receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8