Information about loan /mortgage - Appellant had surreptitiously brought in videographer & media men in the NIC Room during video conference which the Commission found inappropriate and advised that it should not be allowed to be repeated
19 Jun, 2014Information regarding taking over of physical possession of units of M/s. Shree Ganesh Woolen Mills, Amritsar, alleged to be mortgaged with the bank was denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; - Respondent Bank: if the appellant gives clear information that the loan was taken by him against his own / wife’s property, they shall consider providing him information keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act - the appellant had surreptitiously brought in videographer and media men in the NIC Room which the Commission found inappropriate and advised that it should not be allowed to be repeated
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Gurvinder Singh, has submitted the RTI application dated 05 January 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Amritsar, seeking information regarding taking over of physical possession of units of M/s. Shree Ganesh Woolen Mills, Amritsar, alleged to be mortgaged with the bank, through a total of 4 points.
2. The CPIO, vide reply dated 16 February 2013, by claiming the exemption under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 supplied the demand notice & publication in newspapers as carried out by bank from time to time from 17.02.2009 to 17.08.2012. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority (FAA), vide appeal dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. February 2013. The FAA vide order dated 20 March 2013 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the CPIO.
3. The appellant then preferred second appeal before the Commission vide letter dated 05 May 2013, against the order of FAA on the ground of wrongfully claiming exemption under Section 8 (1)(d) of the Act and for misconduct and failure to provide information on the part of the FAA & CPIO.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Gurvinder Singh, was present along with his advocate, Shri S. K. Sharma. The respondent, Shri S.K. Pasrija, Asstt. General Manager and FAA was also present at Amritsar.
5. The appellant had asked for information regarding date and time of taking physical possession of certain properties mentioned by him in his application along with names and addresses of persons associated at the time of taking over the possession, inventory prepared at the time and the photographs of taking over of the physical possession among others.
6. The CPIO gave him information regarding the dates of publication of the auction notice in the newspapers and the dates of other notices. The rest of the information was denied to the appellant under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; stating commercial confidence and trade secret.
7. During the hearing, the appellant added that he had taken loan from Punjab National Bank and mortgaged his property and his wife‘s property against the loan. The bank sold the property due to nonpayment of loan and, therefore, he had sought the information.
8. The respondent stated that the appellant never brought out his stake in the matter clearly before them and, therefore, they had denied him information under Section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; . The respondent further stated that if the appellant gives clear information that the loan was taken by him against his own property/ his wife’s property, they shall consider providing him information keeping in view the provisions of the RTI Act.
9. While the hearing was being concluded, the respondent added that the appellant had surreptitiously brought in videographer and media men in the NIC Room. While the appellant denied this, the NIC official confirmed what the respondent had mentioned. The Commission finds it inappropriate and advises that it should not be allowed to be repeated.
Decision Notice
10. In view of the submissions made by the respondents, the appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Gurvinder Singh v. Punjab National Bank in M/s. Shree Ganesh Woolen Mills, Amritsar