Central Information Commission
P L Verma vs State Bank Of India on 10 July, 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/SBIND/A/2023/111583
P. L. Verma ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Shimla
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.08.2022 FA : 03.11.2022 SA : 21.02.2023
CPIO : 22.09.2022 FAO : 25.11.2022 Hearing : 04.07.2024
Date of Decision: 10.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Certified copies of the documents submitted by Lt. Sh. Govind Ram, S/o Lt. Sh.
Devi Dass. Village Dharogra/Bathora, P.O. Dharogra/Pandoa, Sub Tehsil Jalog District Shimla, H.P. at the time of sanction of Loan and payment thereof to him against Khata Haja ka Kitta (नोट ‐ ई.न. 410 आड़ रहन से खाता हजा का िकता 95 रकबा तादादी 13‐57‐54 है । 1/12 भाग बकदर रकबा 01‐13‐13 है िमन जािनब गोिव' राम मािलक )े ट ब*क आफ इ-.या शाखा सु2ी के पास बदले म्० 3,00,000/‐ तीन लाख म7 क०सी०सी० कज8 आड़ रहन रहेगा जो िक िमित 02‐05‐2019 को म9जू र Page 1 of 6 है ) Sanctioned and paid by your Bank on dated 02-05-2019 to Lt. Sh. Govind Ram,
(ii) Certified copies of the documents submitted by the guarantors alongwith his name and his full address who appended his signatures in your documents as a guarantee at the time of grant/sanction of K.C.C. Loan and payment thereof to Sh. Govind Ram on dated 02-05-2019.
(iii) Whether any property of the guarantor has been mortgaged by the Bank at the time of granting loan and payment thereof if so Kindly supply the Certified copies of the said documents under R.T.I. Act, 2005."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought by you relates to third party information and no public interest is involved in the same, thus same is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 25.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.02.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"That in fact the SBI Sunni Branch has sanctioned and paid a Loan on the basis of Kisan Credit Card (K.C.C. Loan) in favour of Late Shri Govind Ram,Village Bathora, post office Pandoa, Sub Tehsil Jalog(Tehsil Sunni), Distict Shimla, H.p., and the disclosure of which would not harm the competitive position of a third party. The K.C.C. Loan,s are granted/ sanctioned and paid just to facilitate the farmers to meet with the day to day requirements of their expenditures to be incurred in agricultural work such as purchase of Seeds of high breeds, fertilizers, pesticides and other equipments involved in agricultural work. Therefore, it would not harm the specific farmer/loanee by disclosing the information to any applicant under RTI Act- Moreover, the Appellant/applicant is Page 2 of 6 himself the co-owner alongwith other 47 No co-owners in the aforementioned property, against which the State Bank of India has granted the K.C.C. Loan to Late Sh. Govind Ram and has mortgaged the combined/joint property without written consent of the concerned co-owners. The Bank Authority can't mortgage the such property in which some other co-owners have their legal share/rights without their written consent, because their shares are to be intact. The Bank authority has unnecessary created threat to the interests of the co-owners. This action of the Bank authority is against the principal of natural justice That there are standing instructions of the District Collector-Cum-Deputy Commissioner Shimla, District Shimla issued vide his office letter No. SML.LRD lS(2)12007-44051dated 29tr of January,2007'6 That no Tatima or N.O.C for any purpose be issued in respect of joint holding (even if a co-owner is in recorded possession of specific Khasra number in a joint holding) to co-owner without the consent of all co- owners either in planning area or in other areas.
That after making the application dated 29-08-2022 as per Annexure p-l supra and the- correspondence referred to as above the appellant/applicant was expecting that the desired information would be supplied to him, but it is astonishing and painful to state here that the respondent has not supplied the desired information to the appellant/applicant till date. Thus, the respondent has flagrantly violated the very purpose of enactment of the Right to Information Act-2005, which action on the part of the respondent is not tenable in the eyes of law' Due to the inaction on the part of the respondent, the right of the appellant to seek the desired information has been infringed by the respondent. The respondent has failed to supply the required complete information which is contrary to the provision of RTI Act. The respondent has no right and authority under the law to supply the incomplete information or to withhold the information as has been done in the case of the appellant."
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the Respondent, Vikas Kumar, Chief Manager & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
Page 3 of 66. The Appellant reiterated the information sought for in the RTI Application and read out the provision of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to state that the applicability of these provisions is not justified in his case as explained in the grounds of second appeal mentioned above. He further argued that the CPIO ought to have taken the consent of the third party as per Section 11 of the RTI Act.
7. The Respondent explained the loan detail of the now deceased Govind Ram and submitted that these details can only be provided to the wife of Govind Ram if she produces the requisite documents, or the guarantor could have asked for the information and not any other third party.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application relates to the personal information of a third party and stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act by the CPIO appears to be far stretched and out of place. Similarly, the Appellant's insistence on the CPIO seeking for the consent of the third party i.e. vis-à-vis Govind Ram's legal heirs etc. is also found to be untenable as Section 11 of the RTI Act does not mandate the CPIO to invariably seek for the consent of third parties, rather, consent is mandated in the event that the CPIO "intends" to disclose the information. Further, as regards the contentions of the Appellant, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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 & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794. The following was thus held:
Page 4 of 6"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..."
9. Having observed as above and in the absence of any larger public interest apparent in the disclosure of the information sought for by the Appellant, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
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: 10.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act)
State Bank of India,
Regional Business Office (R-1), 40,
S.D.A. Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla - 171009
2. P. L. Verma
Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)