Central Information Commission
Anil Babbar vs Punjab National Bank on 5 November, 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/PNBNK/A/2023/110941
Anil Babbar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Punjab National Bank, ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Haridwar
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.10.2022 FA : 22.11.2022 SA : 24.02.2023
CPIO : 23.12.2022 FAO : 31.01.2023 Hearing : 04.10.2024
Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"Please provide us all the original & revised Internal Risk Rating sheets generated/compiled by the bank from 18.03.2013 till date with full calculation chart/parameters applied/modalities adopted and objective/subjective input data related to our firm entered/considered in the processing of the Internal Risk Ratings."
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.11.2022.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 5"In this regard, it is informed that information sought by you pertains to internal functioning and decision making and the information sought is exempt under section 8(1)
(d) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The FAA vide order dated 31.01.2023 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 24.02.2023 stating inter alia as under:
"I have explained above in details that the Internal Risk Rating in our term loan account was changing frequently between B2, C1 & C2 resulting in levy of excessive rate of interest carrying spread of 5% over benchmark rates and the Internal Risk Rating was reported to have been changed by the bank from C2 (carrying spread of 50% over benchmark rates) as on 08.03.2018 to B1 (carrying spread of 1.95% over benchmark rates) as on 09.03.2018 after our complaint/representation dated 19.12.2019 to the MD/CEO of the bank resulting in reduction of 3.05% in rate of interest.
Further, in view of track of inconsistent/erratic Internal Risk Ratings assigned by the bank to our firm, despite no visible significant change in our business profile, management, value of mortgaged securities during the period, which resulted in levy of huge amount of risk premium as high as 5% over the Base Rate/Marginal Cost of Lending Rates(Our term loan remained more than 200o/o secured by equitable mortgage of premium hotel property which made our term loan an almost zero risk asset for the bank), we repeatedly requested the bank to provide us the requisite information relating to the Internal Risk Ratings assigned by the bank to our loan account. However, the bank did not provide it and we had to seek this information under Right to Information Act and the CPIO, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Haridwar has declined it by invoking section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act'2005 without providing the cogent reasons for the denial, as to how the disclosure of the requisite information relating to the Internal Risk Ratings (which has helped the bank to recover excessive interest amount of over 5.00 crores from us in our loan account), assigned by the bank to our loan account, is classified/considered as Page 2 of 5 information of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party.
2. Most importantly, the Bank has commitment to provide the information to all the borrowers Suo moto, even without any formal request from the borrowers, in terms of Punjab National Bank's own guidelines/directives issued/circulated to all the offices of the bank vide IRMD Circular no. 05/2012 dated 27.01.2012 which reads as under:..."
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajesh Sharma, DZM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and upon a query from the Commission seeking the justification for the same in the backdrop of the Appellant's grounds of second appeal as mentioned above, it was simply stated that as per bank's policy the information cannot be disclosed.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act has not been explained or justified in the reply of the CPIO; FAA's order or during the hearing. Moreover, it is not contested that the information sought for relates to Appellant's own firm and the CPIO has not argued any aspect of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act rather, in their reply it was stated that the information pertains to bank's internal functioning and decision making while during the hearing and has merely insisted on the denial being as per bank's policy. Here, reference may be had of Section 22 of the RTI Act which provides that- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act."
8. Having observed as above, since the CPIO has failed to justify the denial of the information under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and the applicability of any other exemption is also not pertinent except the fact that the records sought for may entail varied documents as the Appellant has mentioned a timeline of about 9 years.
Page 3 of 5Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to revisit the matter and provide a reply to the Appellant incorporating the readily available information and alternatively, if deemed conducive, the Appellant may also be offered an inspection of the available records on a mutually decided date & time and be provided with copies of documents as desired during the inspection, free of cost.
In doing so, the CPIO is accorded the limited liberty to invoke Section 10 of the RTI Act albeit sparingly for denying only such contents which squarely stand exempted under any of the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act while also specifying and justifying the invocation of the relevant exemption while also having regard to Section 22 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is cautioned to ensure against callous interpretation and invocation of Section 8 exemptions in the future to cause prima-facie deliberate denial of information to the RTI Applicants.
The above directions for providing a revised reply to the Appellant along with the available information shall be complied with by the CPIO within 30 days of the receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
9. 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: 05.11.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act, 2005)
Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office, Haridwar - 249401
2. Anil Babbar
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)