ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Did IDBI Bank have one – time settlement scheme and for MSME in particular?

(ii) Applicability of OTS Scheme a ) SMA A/c – Yes / No b ) NPA asset – Yes / No c ) Doubtful asset – Yes / No d ) Loss asset – Yes / No (iii) If yes to (1) above, please provide a copy supporting document.

(iv) Please also provide a copy of RBI guideline/regulation stipulating additional provisioning by the bank in the case of OTS.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.05.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) Yes (ii) Applicability of OTS Scheme a ) Yes b ) Yes c ) Yes d ) Yes (iii) Internal policies/ circulars/ information are issued by the bank for internal use.

Hence document sought is in the nature of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. Further, there is no larger foreseeable public interest that warrants disclosure of such information under the RTI Act. Hence, we regret our inability to provide you the information.

(iv) Bank is following the provisioning norms as per the RBI guidelines prescribed in its master circular on ‘Prudential norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances’ dated April 1, 2022, for all NPA cases. As per the above referred guidelines, no specific provision is advised in case of OTS. Copy of the circular is available on RBI website (sss.rbi.org.in). The above information may also be obtained from the concerned Public Information Authority in RBI.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.05.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 31.05.2022 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 05.07.2022.

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 09.05.2022. 7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of records, observed that a point-wise reply as per the availability of the records was given to the appellant on 09.05.2022. 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. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Anandi Ramalingam) ( आनंदी राम लंगम आनंदी राम लंगमआनंदी राम लंगम आनंदी राम लंगम ) Information Commissioner (सूचना सूचनासूचना सूचना आयु आयुआयु आयु) दनांक/Date: 22.02.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा, (रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties: