V V Subba Roa vs Bank Of India on 20 April, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

V V Subba Roa vs Bank Of India on 20 April, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 31.05.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 05.12.2020 and first appeal dated27.01.2021:-

(i) Provide the date of retirement of Shri Subhash Phadate DZM of Kolapur Zone.

(ii) Provide the nature of penalty inflicted to the staff including DZM, ZM and members of M Com in the H&T loan and corporate loans sanctioned in the account Kisan Veer SataraSahakariShakkarKharkhana at Satara Branch and it's another unit financed by Kolhapur main Branch.

Page 1 of 7

(iii) Provide the Bank's lending policy to sugar industry including H&T and Basal Dose and other tie up loans which was in existence between 2010 and 2020 along with modifications done. If any, time to time.

(iv) Provide the subsequent amendments to Branch Circular No. 96/96 subject lending policy to sugar industry including H&T finance.

(v) Provide the names of the branches with which the H&T loans of KisanveerSataraSahakariShakkarKharkhana were parked including Satara and Guruwarper Branches?

(vi) Provide the aggregate sanctioned limit of H&T loans sanctioned to M/s KisanveerSataraSahakariShakkarKharkana at Satara and Guruwarpet branches between 2010 and 2020 year wise?

(vii) Provide the purpose for which the Term Loan of Rs. 50 crores was sanctioned by M Com vide reference NO HO:C&IC:BC;2018-19:1372 dated 05-02-2019 for Rs. 50 crores.

(viii) Provide the total fund based and non-fund based exposure enjoyed by KisanveerSahakariShakkarKharkana Pvt. Limited CUST ID 134593752 ACCOUNT No**********004 with Kolhapur Main Branch and *************03 and *************07 and 8.

(ix) Provide copy of the relevant page or table of the Board Approved Delegation policy based on which the M Com had sanctioned the limits vide reference NO HO:C&IC:BC;2018-19:1372 dated 05-02-2019 for Rs. 50 crores.

(x) Provide the copy of the relevant page or table of the Board Approved delegation policy based on which the ZLCC Kolhapur sanctioned the Short Term Review proposal vide Reference No KZO:CR:SSG:20-21:38A which was originally sanctioned by M Com vide reference NO HO:C&IC:BC;2018-19:1372 dated 05- 02- 2019 for Rs. 50 crores.

Page 2 of 7

(xi) Provide the names of the members of ZLCC that had sanctioned the Review Proposal KZO:CR:SSG:20-21:38 and also names of the authorities that had noted the Review Proposal under PSRS?

(xii) Provide the name of the delegated authority and designation that had sanctioned the original proposal and Review Proposals in the account having CUST ID134593752 and the account No **********04 with Kolhapur Main Branch?

(xiii) Provide the date of original NPA classification and the present health code of account having CUST ID134593752 and the account No. ************04 with Kolhapur Main Branch?

(xiv) Provide the date of Original NPA and Present outstanding Balance in the account *************03 and two cash credit accounts ***********07 and 08?

(xv) Provide copy of the departmental note approved vide reference NO SD 666663976 dated 08/08/2016 about change in instalment start date? (xvi) Provide the present NPA of Satara and Guruwarpet (satara) Branches? (xvii) Provide the departmental note approved by the competent authority to disburse the amount in Term Loan **************03 with Satara Branch to the CD a/c of the same borrower in the same branch instead of Cash Credit account ********07 and or 08.

(xviii) Provide the systems and procedures stipulated by M Com in the sanctioned proposal to verify the end use of funds while stipulating transfer of loan disbursement of Rs. 50 crores to CD accounts with Satara Branch instead of cash credit account and from CD account Satara Branch to transfer of funds to Bank of Maharashtra JAMB branch as it is difficult to verify end use of funds in some other bank?

(xix) Provide the reasons and justification recorded in the Review Proposal KZO:CR:SSG:20-21:38A for undertaking short review and also justification for short Review by ZLCC despite original proposal was sanctioned by M Com and Page 3 of 7 the company is enjoying term loan with Kolhapur Branch and two cash credit accounts with Satara Branch (xx) Provide the facilities reviewed vide review proposal NO KZO:CR:SSG:20-21:38A as the competent authority had to review all the facilities together instead of single facility? Etc. through 32 points.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated05.12.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated04.01.2021replied to the appellant. Aggrievedby the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 27.01.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated01.03.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved bythat, the appellant filed second appeal dated 31.05.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated31.05.2021inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated04.01.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i), (xi) and (xxvii) "We wish to inform you that the information sought by you is arising out of fiduciary relationship and is in the nature of personal information and falls under the exemptions provided under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) under RTI Act from disclosure.

The information called for has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. Hence, we decline to provide these information.

(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x), (xvi), (xviii) & (xxii) We wish to inform said information is in the nature of commercial confidence and is arising out of fiduciary Page 4 of 7 relationship and falls under the exemptions under Section 8 (1) (d) & (e) under RTI Act from disclosure. Hence, we decline to provide these information.

(viii), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxxi) & (xxxii) we wish to inform you that said information is falls under the exemptions under Section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of RTI Act, from discloser. The information sought by you is third party information, is in the nature of commercial confidence, arising out of fiduciary relationship and the information called for has no relationship to any public activity or interest which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Also the information sought by you is the personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence we decline to provide this information.

(ii), (xxiii), (xxiv) & (xxx).We wish to inform you that, the information sought by you is based on incorrect information. No such information is available with us."

The FAA vide order dated01.03.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Kiran Pathank, CPIO, Bank of India, Kolhapur, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he sought information regarding finance made in Kolhapur Zone in general and particularly in the account M/s Kisanveer SSS K Ltd. Satara Branch in which, the Bank had reportedly suffered huge financial loss of more than Rs. 100 crores. He wanted to expose the fraud committed by the bank's officials while sanctioning loans.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 04.01.2021. They further submitted that most of the information sought by the appellant pertained to personal information of third party and the same was in the nature of commercial confidence, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

Page 5 of 7

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed thatthe respondent had provided point- wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 04.01.2021. The FAA also upheld by the CPIO's reply vide their order dated 01.03.2021. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information. Perusal of the replies revealed that due reply was given by the respondent except point no. (iii) of the RTI application i.e. copy of Bank's lending policy to sugar industry, which was denied by the respondent under section 8 (1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act. The respondent failed to explain as to how bank's lending policy would fall within the exempted category. Therefore, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information on point no.

(iii) of the RTI application i.e. copy of Bank's lending policy to sugar industry, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा ा Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 19.04.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Bank of India 1519-C, Jaydhaval Bldg., 2nd Fl., Laxmipuri, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416 002 First Appellate Authority Bank of India RTI Cell, Legal Department, 4th Floor, EAST Wing, Star House, C-5, G-Block,BandraKurla Complex, Bandra(EAST), Mumbai-400051 Shri V VSubha Rao Page 6 of 7 Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission