ORDER

(03.06.2022)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.03.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 11.05.2019 and first appeal dated 13.06.2019:-

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 11.05.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Lucknow, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 23.05.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.06.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 18.06.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 12.03.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 12.03.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 23.05.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The FAA vide order dated 18.06.2019 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Ajay Khanna, Regional Head, Central Bank of India, Lucknow, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply given by the respondent was not satisfactory and complete.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise information to the appellant. Moreover, the CGTMSE (Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises) scheme was applicable on the appellant’s loan account and that the securitization of the loan was done as per the guidelines of RBI. Further, they had taken collateral security in the appellant’s case as CGTMSE cover was there for the loan.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 23.05.2019 including the fact that in absence of collateral security, the CGTSME coverage was taken from the appellant. Moreover, the appellant had raised queries regarding primary and collateral securities of the loan with CGTSME coverage in the form of clarification which were not covered within the definition of “information” under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In spite of the indefinite queries, the respondent addressed all the points in the RTI Application. Therefore, there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.