Personal information is protected under the RTI Act, and disclosure requires a demonstration of larger public interest.

O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2023/651236

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2023 seeking information on the following points:

 The two loan cases of 1) Maqbool Khan Flat T1 Third floor Niranjan Prisar 212 Gopal Nagar Bhopal and 2) Amarpal Singh Flat S2 Second Floor Niranjan Parisar

212 Gopal Nagar Bhopal. (i) Loan sanction Date (ii) Date on which account was declared NPA (iii) Date on which Bank took Symbolic and Physical possession of property (iv) Name of legal search advocate and date of report (v) Name of Valuer and date of report …etc.

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 16.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The information sought is not related to you. Only borrowers/ co-borrowers/ mortgagors/ guarantors (or their legal heirs in the instance of their demise) are eligible to receive loan account related details from us. In the absence of mandate letter from the account holders authorizing yourself to receive the information on their behalf, you are construed as third party. As we have the obligation to maintain secrecy of our customers' account details exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) and 8 (1) (j) (as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and does not involve larger public interest) under the RTI Act, we express our inability to furnish the details sought.”

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.11.2023.

Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2023/651235

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) I want to inspect file and documents related to Loan case of Property Flat T1, Apartment Niranjan Parisar, Plot 212, Gopal Nagar, Gram Khajuri Kalan, Bhopal, financed to Maqbool Khan and property Flat S2, Apartment Niranjan Parisar, Plot 212, Gopal Nagar, Gram Khajuri Kalan, Bhopal, financed to Amarpal Singh both financed by old Allahabad Bank Kolua Kalan branch now Indian Bank during period Feb-March 2018 I want certified copies of all documents related to above mentioned two Loan cases.

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“The information sought is not related to you. Only borrowers/ co-borrowers/ mortgagors/ guarantors (or their legal heirs in the instance of their demise) are eligible to receive loan account related details from us. In the absence of mandate letter from the account holders authorizing yourself to receive the information on their behalf, you are construed as third party. As we have the obligation to maintain secrecy of our customers' account details exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) and 8 (1) (j) (as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and does not involve larger public interest) under the RTI Act, we express our inability to furnish the details sought.”

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.10.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 09.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 06.11.2023.

3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The appellant inter alia submitted that the reply furnished