Central Information Commission
Rajasekaran M. vs Canara Bank on 12 January, 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/CANBK/A/2022/128500
Rajasekaran M. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Salem
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 14.03.2022 FA : 21.04.2022 SA : 08.06.2022
CPIO : 30.03.2022 FAO : 27.05.2022 Hearing : 10.01.2024
Date of Decision: 11.01.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2022 seeking information through 20 points regarding an educational loan availed by her as under:
"(i) On having settled the loan availed and issued certificate to that effect, on whose authority and order, you had preferred the complaint in the Sub-Court, Paramathy.
(ii) As on records, does the bank have any amount to be recovered from us, need to be known. If there is any due, the same may be informed.Page 1 of 4
(iii) Had the bank recovered the loan outstanding from us. If yes, the date on which that was recovered, quantum remitted denomination wise.
(iv) On recovery had the Bank passed the information to the section concerned, to record the same close our accounts or not, copy to the effect is needed.
(v) If yes, then on whose authority and order, Sri. Elango, advocate preferred the complaint to the Sub- Court, Paramathy, to initiate recovery proceedings against us, need to be known." Etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 30.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) "The account of the borrower became NPA on 29.03.2016. The suit is filed against the borrower on 17.12.2020. The borrower settled the account under OTS on 15.02.2021. On the date of filing the suit account of the Borrower was NPA.
(ii) The Laon account No: 1309651005867 is closed under OTS by waving off the portion of interest and principal.
(iii) The entire loan outstanding was not paid by the borrower as the loan was settled under One Time Settlement by waiving off the portion in interest and principal. The borrower had a liability of Rs: 629679.09 with our Pothanur Pudupalayam Branch as on 15.02.2021. The borrower came forward to settle the account under OTS for Rs;25707.00 the same is accepted by the Bank.
The borrower has paid Rs 25707.00 as OTS amount on 15.02.2021. Hence the account is settled and closed under OTS on 09.03.2021.
(iv) The information sought by you is relating to the internal communication of our Bank and the same is under the purview of commercial confidence or Trade Secret. Hence the information sought by you is exempted under section 8 (1)(d) if the RTI Act 2005.
Page 2 of 4(v) The Account of the Borrower became NPA on 29.03.2016. The suit is filed against the borrower on 17.12.2020. The borrower settled the account under OTS on 15.02.2021. On the date of filing the suit account of the Borrower was NPA..."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.04.2022. The FAA vide order dated 27.05.2022 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 08.06.2022.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Rajesh N, Divisional Manager & CPIO along with Uma Maheshwari, Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant. Upon a query from the Commission asking to justify the invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act on points 4 & 6 of the RTI Application, the CPIO struggled to provide a justification except for repeatedly submitting that it pertains to an internal record exchanged between the Regional Office and Branch and between the Bank and their Advocate.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that although the reply provided by the CPIO to the RTI Application is largely appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act, however, the information sought for at points 4 & 6 of the RTI Application being related to the loan availed by the Appellant himself cannot be squarely denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Moreover, no tenable justification for the square invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was forthcoming from the CPIO during the hearing.
8. Having observed as above, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit points 4 & 6 of the RTI Application and provide the available and relevant information to the Appellant, free of cost. In doing so, the CPIO is afforded the liberty to redact only such part of the Page 3 of 4 record which expressly fall under the exempted aspects envisaged under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is cautioned to note that "internal record" is not a category of exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The revised reply as directed shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of 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: 11.01.2024
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Canara Bank, DM & Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Regional Office - II
Plot No. 15/20, First Floor,
Indira Gandhi Road,
Fairlands, Salem - 636016
2. Rajasekaran M.
Page 4 of 4