Central Information Commission
Mr.G. Manohar Raj vs State Bank Of India on 17 June, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000715/03604
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000715
Dated: 17.6.2013
Appellant: Shri G. Manohar Raj,
26, Pathrakali Amman Koli Street,
Panagudi627109, Rahapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
State Bank of India,
Regional Manager, RBO,
Tirunelveli627001
Date of Hearing: 17.6.2013
O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 13.5.2011 seeking information about a gold loan to an individual from Palavur branch of the respondent bank. In all, information has been sought on 4 points. The CPIO, while providing some information on 17.5.2011, denied information on the other points under section 8(1)(j) and (e) of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 27.5.2011. The FAA elaborated the reply of CPIO on 18.6.2011. The appellant approached the Commission on 25.6.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 13.5.2011 and stated that he had sought information about the particulars of the agricultural gold loan scheme of the bank, the system adopted by the bank to identify whether the borrower is an agriculturist and a specific loan account.
5. The respondent stated that the RTI application of 13.5.2011 was responded to on 17.5.2011, i.e., almost within the timelines specified in the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the information is fully comprehensive and complete and covered all points except that which pertained to a loan account of a certain individual. The respondent stated that the information on the loan account of an individual was denied under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act while also stating that the disclosure of this would have no relationship to any public activity and would involve unwarranted invasion in individual privacy.
6. The appellant stated that there was a lady who had taken an agricultural loan on the basis of the gold which the appellant had provided to her. The appellant stated that the lady was a neighbor and that he had given the gold in good faith and that the lady took the loan. The appellant stated that he had sent a letter to various bank officers along with a copy to the Information Commission. The appellant stated that the matter has now been settled with the lady and that he does not require any information on the RTI application.
Decision
7. No intervention of Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer