के(cid:3)(cid:4)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission , बाबागंगनाथमाग(cid:20) मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka , New Delhi – 110067 नई(cid:22)द(cid:24)ली

File No: CIC/SBIND/A/2022/648721 RAHUL KUMAR SINGH .….. /Appellant अपीलकता(cid:20)

VERSUS बनाम CPIO, State Bank Of India, RTI Cell, Stressed Assets Resolution Group, SARG, The Arcade, 2^nd Floor World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005, MH. .. ..….(cid:1)(cid:2)तवाद(cid:7)गण/Respondent Date of Hearing : 31/08/2023 Date of Decision : 31/08/2023 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 19/07/2022 CPIO replied on : 25/07/2022 First appeal filed on : 07/08/2022 First Appellate Authority order : 07/09/2022

2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2022 seeking the following information:

“I, (Deepak Kumar Singh) am owner of immovable property situated at Saguna More Patna, which was leased by me to M/s Priyadarshi Motor Pvt Ltd vide Registered Leese Deed No: 5561. The said lease deed was Equitable Mortgage by State Bank of India in Loan Account No: 30534531191.

1. Please provide the details who carried out due diligence of above said property for sanctioning of loan to M/s Priyadarshi Motor Pvt Ltd.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 25.07.2022 stating as under: “Please refer to your application No. SBIND/R/T/22/00887 dated 21.07.2022, addressed to SBI, Patna Circle with reference No. SBIPA/R/E/22/00447 received at their end on 21/07/2022, wherein you have sought information regarding who carried out due diligence of the property as mentioned in your RTI application for sanctioning of loan to M/s. Priyadarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd. by State Bank of India in loan A/c No. 30534531191.

The information sought by you are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that it is covered under commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2022. FAA’s order, dated 07.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO with the following observations -

“In my opinion, the names and designation of officials who performed certain duties, are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act as such disclosure would endanger the life and physical safety of such officials. Further, the information, though pertains to the applicant's property, involves commercial confidence. Hence, the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and (g) of the Act.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video-conference.

Respondent: M. Srinivasa Rao, DGM & CPIO present through video-conference. The written submission filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record.

The Appellant expressed his dissatisfaction with the denial of information by the CPIO on the grounds that the property in question against which loan was sanctioned by the SBI was leased by him to M/s Priyadarshi Motors Pvt Ltd and with the default by the said firm, now he was made to suffer financial loss. Such circumstances led him to the filing to RTI Application, he further prayed the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the details of the officials who carried out due diligence of above said property for sanctioning of loan to M/s Priyadarshi Motors Pvt Ltd.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of averred reply.

Decision:

The Commission observes from a perusal of record that the main premise of instant Appellant was denial of information by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act. In response to which, the CPIO invited attention of the bench towards the averred reply as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. In this regard, the Commission is of the considered view that the CPIO has appropri