Central Information Commission
Shri Bhagwat Seth vs Bank Of Baroda on 12 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00558-SM dated 02.01.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 12.01.2009
Appellant: Shri Bhagwat Seth
Respondents: Bank of Baroda
The Appellant is not present inspite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ashok Kumar, AGM is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO seeking information about the name, address, loan account and the date of sanction of loan as also the date on which the sale deed was executed in respect of various borrowers of the Bank in the Vasundhara Colony, Pilibhit for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.09.2007. Disposing of this application dated 04.10.2007, the CPIO, in his order dated 25.10.2007, denied the information by referring to Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act. The Appellant filed his first appeal before the Appellate Authority in his appeal dated 15.11.2007. The Appellate Authority disposed off his appeal in his order dated 10.12.2007 in which he upheld the decision of the CPIO in denying the information as being personal information not related to any public interest or activity. He also referred to the Section 13 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act in support of his decision. Not content with this decision, the Appellant has now approached this Commission in second appeal.
3. Inspite of notice, the Appellant was not present during the hearing. We carefully examined his appeal as also the various documents enclosed therewith.
We heard the submissions made by the Respondents. Indeed, the Appellant had asked for the details about the borrowers of the Bank including their names, address, loan amount, date of sanction etc. This information is obviously held by the Bank in trust and disclosure of such information would lead to the breach of that trust and may also affect the competitiveness of those third parties. Apparently, there is no public interest or activity related to this information. Therefore, we find that the CPIO had rightly denied the information and the Appellate Authority was also right in upholding the decision of the CPIO. While we reject the appeal, we would like to advise the CPIO that, in future, in denying any information, he should record a speaking order rather than merely referring to certain Sections of Right to Information Act.
4. With the above observations, we dispose off this appeal. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar