Central Information Commission
Shri.Inderpal Singh vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 5 December, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002667/16119
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002667
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Inderpal Singh
1359/1 B-tank Kacha Patiala
Arya Smaj, Patiala (Punjab) - 147001
Respondent : Mr. M. K. Prasad
CPIO & AGM(Law) Oriental Bank of Commerce Head Office, Sector-32, Gurgaon, Haryana RTI application filed on : 10-05-2011 PIO replied on : 06-06-2011 First Appeal filed on : Not Mentioned First Appellate Authority order of : 12-09-2011(Issued By the RBI) Second Appeal received on : 22-09-2011 Information Sought:-
The appellant has sought the following information:-
(1) Does Oriental Bank of Commerce gives advances /loans from public money? (2) Whether Oriental Bank of Commerce at Patiala has/ had given loan in crores to Kaasa Rama Combines pvt. Ltd .?
(3) Is it correct that above business concern was dealing with oriental bank of commerce patiala prior to the sanction of above loan?
(4) Is it correct that there were frequent cheque returns in the a/c of above business concern and other different a/c of owners / directions of above business concern (5) Is it correct that above business concern at that time was availing the loan/advance /credit facility from Punjab National Bank too?
(6) Is it correct that Oriental Bank of Commerce at patiala has double financed to the captioned party? (7) Whether the finaced funds used for speculative purpose ? Did OBC ensured the end use of loan funds of this a/c.
(8) Is it correct that Oriental Bank of Commerce at patiala given the loan on the same prime security Which was already pledged/ mortgaged/hypothecated etc to Punjab National Bank? If Yes how it happened?
(9) Supply the detail information of irregularities and fraudulent occurrence in the captioned business Concern.
(10) Whether Oriental Bank of Commerce lodged the information of fraudulent activity as required under law? if not, why OBC concealed the facts.
(11) Whether OBC given the above facility according to it's loan policy and IBA RULES? (12) Supply the copy of Oriental Bank of Commerce at patiala loan policy concerned with the above Loan.
(13) Is it correct that Oriental Bank of Commerce at patiala take over the above loan from SBOP?
Whether before taking over the captioned a/c all norms of bank loan policy were fulfilled? Supply detail (14) Were the operations in the a/c satisfactory/good/very good in the consideration of oriental bank of commerce Patiala ?
Page 1 of 3(15) Whether OBC patiala searched the charge on prime security 'in the records of ROC (Registrar of companies ) before sanctioning and disbursing the loan facility? If yes provide the proof. IF-NOT -- What was the reason?
(16) Is it correct that OBC patiala given other loans to facilitate the above a/c be adjusted. Kindly supply their details.
(17) Is it correct that OBC patiala made arrangements for selling/mortgaging the property of the owners/directors to settle the above a/c.
(18) Is it correct that OBC patiala got information from PNB about the malpractice occurred in the above a/c 7 what actions were required as per your policy/IBA/Law? What step OBC taken? Supply information in detail.
(19) Whether all operations were as per norms of the bank? If not, Supply information in detail. (20) Supply the detail of wrong occurrences happened in the above loan? (21) Whether Oriental Bank of Commerce Patiala sanctioned the different loans to close and blood relations of the owners of the above business concern after having the information of functioning culture of the captioned party? If yes , supply information in detail. (22) Whether Oriental Bank of Commerce has fixed accountability of any officer) authority regarding this advance ? Supply information in detail.
PIO Reply:-
The appellant was provided with the following reply:-
In View to 1) - Oriental Bank of Commerce, is a Banking Company, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acqisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) having its Head office at Harsh Bhawan, E-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
In View to 2) to 22) - Information sought pertains to third party having no relationship to any public activity or interest. Also information sought is held in commercial confidence & fiduciary relationship with its customers, hence exempted under section 8(1)(d)(e)&Q) of the RTI Act, 2005 and denied.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"When an application is transferred to another public authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the obligation to respond to the application is on that authority and not on the transferring public authority. Likewise , if an applicant is aggrieved by the non- receipt of the reply, the appropriate authority to deal with the issue is the Appellate Authority in the transferee authority. Hence, in this case, the grievance of the appellant should have been. addressed to the appellate authority in Oriental Bank of Commerce and not to me. The appellant may, if so advised, move the appropriate authority for vindication of his grievances. From my side, I cannot entertain this appeal."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory order was passed by the RBI.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Inderpal Singh on video conference from NIC-Patiala Studio; Respondent : Mr. M. K. Prasad, CPIO & AGM(Law) Head Office, Sector-32, Gurgaon;
The appellant had sought information about the transactions with a customer of the bank. The Appellant contends that this customer is a defaulter and hence information must be made public. It is not for the Commission to decide whether a customer is a defaulter or not. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' Page 2 of 3 The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public interest has been demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 05 December 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA) Page 3 of 3