Central Information Commission
R. K. Singhal vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 22 February, 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/IDBIL/A/2022/623910
R. K. Singhal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: I.D.B.I Bank Limited
Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.03.2022 FA : 04.04.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 22.03.2022 FAO : 08.04.2022 Hearing : 21.02.2024
Date of Decision: 21.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) The SASF by assignment of special securities amounting to Rs9000 crores to IDBI acquired 636 NPA stressed Loan assets with a Net Loan Outstanding of Rs 9004 crores. You are requested to provide photocopy of the document by which the stressed Assets were transferred.
(ii) You are also requested to provide copy of document which contains terms and conditions under which SASF was to settle the loan so transferred.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 3"Documents/records sought pertains to an agreement executed between IDBI Bank Ltd and SASF. The agreement is in the nature of commercial confidence and such information is held by the Bank in its fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act. Further, there is no larger public interest that warrants disclosure of such information under the RTI Act. Hence, we regret our inability to provide you the information."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.04.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 08.04.2022 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 Nil.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Venkatesh, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 22.03.2022.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observed that an apt reply was given to the appellant on 22.03.2022. The FAA in his order has also explained that SASF is a Trust constituted by Government of India for acquiring the stressed assets and NPAs of erstwhile IDBI, where the settlors and beneficiary is GOI itself. The Transfer deed executed between the erstwhile IDBI and SASF is a confidential document and held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the Act. Further, there is no larger public interest that warrants disclosure of such information under the RTI Act. The Commission is unable to find any deficiency in the reply given, hence, no further action lies, more so, when the appellant himself was not present to plead his case.
8. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Page 2 of 3Copy 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: 21.02.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO I.D.B.I Bank Limited, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Regd. Office: I. D.B.I. Tower, W.T.C. Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005
2. R. K. Singhal Page 3 of 3