Central Information Commission
Y N Chandru vs State Bank Of India on 18 August, 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/2022/126193
Y N Chandru ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank
Of India, RTI Cell, 1st Floor, S.N.
Complex, B.M. Road, Bandigowda
Layout, Mandya- 571401, Karnataka. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2023
Date of Decision : 16/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 23/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 21/04/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 16/05/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.02.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. Loan Amount Sanctioned and Released on The Security of Landed Property Bearing Survey No.177, Begamangala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District by earlier State Bank of Mysore and Present State Bank of India Nagamangala Branch, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District.1
2. Total Extent in Said Survey No. 177, Actual Extent offered to the Bank.
3. Type of Land (Dry Land, Wet Land, Khuski, Thari Land, Garden Etc.)
4. Source of Water (Depending on Rain or Having Well/Bore-Well or Irrigated Through Channel.)
5. Type of Soil (Red, Black Etc.)
6. Name and Address of The Khatha Holder of Said Sy. No 177 And Extent of Land Owned by Them.
7. Name and Address of The Actual Cultivators in Said Sy. No. 177 And Actual Extent of Land Using by Them.
8. Name and Address of the Khatha Holder or Actual Cultivators to Whom the Lam has been granted by State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of India Nagamangala Branch.
9. Total Extent of Land Offered as Security to Said State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of India Nagamangala Branch.
10. Type of Security Taken by above Said Bank 1.e., Declaration of Land or Mortgage of land etc. Name and Address of Register's Office Where the Said Security Charge has been Created and Registered.
11. Type of Loan Sanctioned and Released i.e., Demand Loan, Tenn Loan, Crop Loan or Any Other Type Loan.
12. Rate of Interest, Type of Interest (Simple Interest Compound Interest).
13. Position of Loan and Outstanding Balance, If the Loan Is Not Cleared in Full by The Concern Borrower/s.
14. Particulars of Loan Recovery Action Initiated Against the Concern Borrower/s if the Loan is not Cleared.
15. Provide the Certified Copies of Documents Obtained by The Borrower or Borrowers While Sanctioning the Loan on The Security of The Said Lands in Sy. No.177 2
16. Provide the Certified Copies of all Types of Reports Submitted by The Officials and Earlier State Bank of Mysore and Present State Bank of India Nagamangala Branch. Before Sanction and after Release of Loan on Sy. No.
177.
17. Provide All Types of Reports Submitted by The Officials of Earlier State Bank of Mysore and Present State Bank of India Nagamangala Branch After Release of Loan on Sy. No. 177
18. Provide the Copies of All Types of Inspection and Audit Reports Wherein the Audit of Loan on Sy. No. 177 is Included and Reported by The Officers or Auditors.
19. Provide the Copies of All Types of Inspection and Audit Reports Where in The Loan on Sy. No. 177 Is Included in The Audit Conducted by The Officials of RBI And National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).
20. Provide the Copies of Vouchers Through Which Loan Amount Was Released and The Copies of Orations Through which the Loan Amount Was remitted by the Concerned Borrowers Related to Said Sy. No. 177.
21. Present Position of Land in Sy. No. 777 Offered as Security to Earlier State Bank of Mysore and Present State Bank of India Nagamangala rigida Branch. Whether the said Land is still under control ohmic said Bank.
22. Present Position of Loan Granted and Released on The Security of Said Land in Sy. No. 777, Whether It Is Outstanding. Furnish the Total Amount of Principal, Interest or Other Chargers Due from The Borrowers. Or If the Loan Is Closed Furnish the Total Principal Amount, Interest or Other Charges Remitted by the concern Borrower Borrowers.
23. Furnish the Particulars of Legal Action Covered Against the Concern Borrowers in the Sy. No. 177 If Legal Action is Initiated to Recover the Loan.
24. Furnish any other type of Information and Documents Which Are Related to Loan Against Sy. No. 177 As Stated Supra which are not mentioned in above said sI. No. 1-23."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.03.2022 stating as under:
3"We refer to above mentioned application submitted by you to our Nagamangala Branch received by us on 04.03.2022 seeking the information of loan sanctioned on the agricultural land with survey no 177, Begamangala Village, Kasaba hobli, Nagamangala. Your request has been considered in the light of the provisions of this Act and wish to bring to your notice that:
The information sought by you in your application relates to the Third-party information and is held by Bank in fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which is exempted under section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, as such we express our inability to provide the information sought by you in the application."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2022. FAA's order, dated 16.05.2022, concur with the views of the CPIO hence upheld.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Suman, Regional Manager present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that till date no information was provided to him by the Respondent. He stated that the information was wrongly denied to him.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 23.03.2022 and 16.05.2022, they have categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, as the information sought consists of personal information of third party, therefore, it is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The Respondent further apprised the Commission that the information of property which the Appellant is seeking in his RTI application is not related to him.
Decision:
4The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant relates to the personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxxx
(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 also drawn towards 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 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, 5 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 view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is in agreement and same is being upheld by the Commission.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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 / 6