CIC: Furnish a revised reply regarding original note of sanctioning of education loan after redacting third party information - CIC took a serious note of the PIO’s absence during the hearing and sought reasons for remaining absent

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1. Please provide complete set of loan file papers in respect of educational loan account no ******5887 with central bank of India Sarahba Nagar Ludhiana including mails and letters with me my son Yashasvi Grover

2. Please share the copy of original note sanctioning educational loan to me my son by competent authority account no ******5887 at regional office Ludhiana. You may mask the names of officer who have sanctioned the loan and copy of note with masking of names be provided.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

“Point 1- Loan documents are enclosed (Loan Application, Loan Agreement, Form of Guarantee).

Other documents sought by applicant in point no I would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and as such cannot be provided under sec 7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. of RTI Act.

Point 2- Copy of sanctioned letter is already provided to you vide mail dated 22.02.2024 by Sarabha Nagar Branch.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 25.07.2024 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 26.08.2024.

5. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and the respondent remained absent.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought complete set of running file paper of his loan against which the CPIO had taken exemption u/s 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an inadequate reply to the appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2024. The Commission notes that on point no. 2, the appellant has also sought copy of original note of sanctioning of education loan and against which no reply was provided. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to furnish a revised reply on point no. 2, after redacting third party information to the appellant, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

8. Further, the Commission takes serious note of the CPIO’s absence during the hearing despite the notice served to them. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining reasons for remain absent in the hearing by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: Dinesh Grover v. Central Bank of India, Second Appeal No. CIC/CBIND/A/2024/637775; Date of Decision: 25.08.2025