Central Information Commission Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi website-cic.gov.

Transcription

1 Central Information Commission Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi website-cic.gov.in Appeal Nos. CIC/SH/A/2016/000299/MP, CIC/MP/A/2016/000096, CIC/MP/A/2016/000348, CIC/MP/A/2016/000346, CIC/MP/A/2016/000345, CIC/MP/A/2016/000262, Complaint Nos. CIC/MP/C/2015/ and CIC/MP/C/2015/ Appellant/Complainant : Shri B. Prabhakar Reddy, Proddatur Public Authority : State Bank of India, Kadapa Date of Hearing : October 5, 2016 Date of Decision : October 28, 2016 Present: Appellant : Present at CIC Respondent : Shri Seshu Babu Palle, Regional Manager and Shri Pattisapu Srinivas, Manager (Law) at CIC Information Commissioner : Manjula Prasher ORDER The Commission heard six second appeals and two complaints filed by Shri B. Prabhakar Reddy on The appellant/complainant wanted information on total number of housing loan accounts; aggregate outstanding of housing loans; number of housing loans eligible for switch-over/have been switched over; aggregate outstanding of housing loans which have been switched over, and the number of housing loans which have not yet switched over, etc., from different branches of the respondent bank viz. Proddatur ADB, Proddatur Court, and Proddatur Town, inter alia. Case No. CIC/SH/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on seven points pertaining to the details of all home loan accounts, total number of home loans under fixed interest rate and floating rate, as on , under six heads; while also seeking details of fixed rate/floating rate home loans which had switched over/were yet to switch over (with regard to rate of interest), under eight heads The CPIO, vide letter dated , intimated the appellant that information sought in the desired form was not compiled/maintained by them in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, as collection/compilation of the same would disproportionately divert their resources, disclosure of the information was exempt u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA, vide letter dated , stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the complete information. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the complete information free of cost.

2 1.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information about the fixed and flexi rates of interest with regard to home loans, from the respondent bank s Proddatur Court branch, for the time period specified in his RTI application. The respondents stated that vide SBI Circular of odd number dated , the home loan borrowers, having regular and standard floating interest rate accounts, were given the option to switch over to current card interest rates on upfront payment of one time switch-over fee of 1.00% of their outstanding. They, however, informed the Commission that this option was not available to the customers of the bank after 2013 as the rates of interest had become flexi in nature. They informed the Commission that information regarding the segmentation made by the appellant, i.e., 9% to 10%, 10% to 11%, 11% to 12%, etc. till above 15%, was not available with them and stated that information regarding the housing loans had already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated , in a category-wise format as requested by him The Commission observes that the CPIO should have given information as existing and available with them. The CPIO is, however, not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant s perusal. The Hon ble Supreme Court in CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., dated , held that, 35 The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The Commission directs the CPIO to reexamine the RTI application and provide a point-wise response to the appellant, as per available information. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on two points pertaining to the floating interest rates for home loans for the period 2000 to 2015, seeking the same under seven heads, given by him in a proforma, including the interest rate w.e.f. year; base rate; loan amount; base rate for women borrowers, and other borrowers. He also wanted to know whether any charges had to be paid for getting the statement for home loan or the bank would give it free of cost, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated , intimated the appellant that information sought in the desired form was not compiled/maintained by them in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, as collection/compilation of the same would disproportionately divert their resources, disclosure of the information was exempt u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority vide letter dated , stating that the information sought was not complicated and that the CPIO should be directed to provide the complete information. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the information sought was available with the CPIO and as the bank would not have more than customers it should be easy for the manager to provide the same.

3 2.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information about the rates of interest along with the base rate, with regard to the housing loans, from the respondent bank s Regional Business Office (RBO) at Kadapa. The respondents stated that there were around 47 branches of the SBI under their RBO in question; it would be difficult and time consuming to collect information from 47 branches which they do not collect in the normal course of their duties. The CPIO had, therefore, denied the information u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act. The respondents, however, were ready to provide information about the rates of interest, in a year-wise format, to the appellant The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondent authority regarding the difficulty expressed by them in collecting information as sought by the appellant. The respondent authority can provide only that information which is existing and available. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide the rates of interest from 2000 to 2015, as available, to the appellant, within 30 days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on four points pertaining to 103 home loan customers wherein out of 103, only 14 customers were eligible for switch over while the remaining 89 were not included in the letters dated and He wanted information relating to all home loan customers including the 103 customers who were paying installments as on and the role of the bank in reducing higher rate of interest, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated , provided a point-wise response to the appellant, stating that details of home loan customers were exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA, vide letter dated , stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought free of cost The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information about switching over in relation to all the housing loan customers, from the respondent bank s Proddatur Town branch. The respondents stated that information regarding their housing loan customers was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it related to third party information. They also informed the Commission that information about the change in the rates of interest was available on the SBI website in the form of their Annual Reports, and was also published as advertisements in local newspapers. Further, the information sought had already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated The Commission holds that information sought by the appellant regarding all the home loan customers cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it relates to the personal information of the bank s customers which is held by the respondent authority in fiduciary capacity. Moreover no larger public interest is involved in the matter. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the respondents. The Commission is also of the view that the public authority is not obligated to provide that information which is already available in the

4 public domain. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Registrar of Companies & Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg & Ors, dated , observed that, 48 once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be held or under the control of the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on six points pertaining to 219 home loan customers wherein out of 219, only 170 customers were eligible for switch over while the remaining 49 were not included in the letter dated He wanted information about the status of these 49 customers; present position of the 219 customers as on , under six heads; and details of all home loan customers including the 219 customers, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated , provided a point-wise response to the appellant, stating that details of home loan customers were exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the information as sought in the tabular form given by the appellant was not compiled/maintained in their ordinary course of business and hence, could not be provided to the appellant u/s 7(9) of the Act as it would lead to disproportionate diversion of resources, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA, vide letter dated , stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought free of cost The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that wanted information about switching over in relation to the housing loan customers from the respondent bank s Proddatur ADB branch. The respondents stated that information regarding their housing loan customers was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it related to third party information. They also informed the Commission that information about the change in the rates of interest was available on the SBI website and was also published as advertisements in local newspapers. Further, the information sought had already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated On hearing both the parties and going through the available record, the Commission holds that information sought by the appellant, besides being voluminous, cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it relates to the personal information of the bank s customers and is, therefore, held by the respondent authority in fiduciary capacity. No larger public interest has been substantiated by the appellant. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.

5 Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on five points pertaining to 153 home loan customers, out of which only 22 customers were eligible for switch over while the remaining 131 were not included in the letters dated and He wanted the details of these 131 customers and asked about the reasons for their non-inclusion, along with the details of the total number of home loan customers including the 153 customers, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated , provided a point-wise response to the appellant, stating that details of home loan customers were exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA, vide letter dated , stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought free of cost The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information about switching over pertaining to the housing loan customers from the respondent bank s Proddatur Court branch. The respondents stated that information regarding their housing loan customers was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it related to third party information. They also informed the Commission that information about the change in the rates of interest was available on the SBI website in the form of their Annual Reports, and was also published as advertisements in local newspapers. Further, the information sought had already been provided to the appellant vide letter dated The Commission holds that information sought by the appellant cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005 as it relates to the personal information of the bank s customers. No larger public interest in involved in the matter. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/MP/A/2016/ The appellant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on five points pertaining to 534 home loan borrowers/customers wherein out of 534, only 113 switched over to lower interest rates while the remaining 421 were paying higher interest rates. He wanted the information with regard to these 421 customers and asked about the steps taken by the bank to reduce their higher interest rates; present position of the 534 customers on or before , under six heads, given in a proforma devised by him; and sought details of all home loan customers including the 534 customers, etc The CPIO, vide letter dated , provided a point-wise response to the appellant, stating that details of home loan customers were exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, inter alia. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA, vide letter dated , stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought. The FAA, vide letter dated , upheld the CPIO s decision. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought free of cost.

6 6.3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information about switching over from higher rates of interest to lower rates of interest, with regard to the housing loan customers, from the respondent bank s Proddatur Gandhi Road branch. The respondents stated that information regarding their housing loan customers was denied by the CPIO u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it related to third party information. They also informed the Commission that information about the change in the rates of interest was available on the SBI website in the form of their Annual Reports, and was also published as advertisements in local newspapers On hearing both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a point-wise response to the appellant, as per available record, while keeping the RTI Act, 2005 in view, within 20 days of the receipt of the order. The appeal is disposed of. Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/ The complainant, vide RTI application dated , sought information on seven points pertaining to the details of all home loan accounts, total number of home loans under fixed interest rate and floating rate, as on , under six heads; while also seeking details of fixed rate/floating rate home loans which had switched over/were yet to switch over (with regard to rate of interest), under eight heads The CPIO did not provide any response to the complainant. Aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent, the complainant approached the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought and further, he should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he wanted information about the housing loan accounts from the respondent bank s Proddatur Town branch. The respondents stated that information regarding the rates of interest in the segmentation made by the appellant, i.e., 9% to 10%, 10% to 11%, 11% to 12%, etc. till above 15%, was not available with them. They stated that information regarding the housing loans had already been provided to the complainant vide letter dated , in a category-wise format as requested by him On hearing both the parties, the Commission holds that information as available and disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided to the complainant. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the respondents. The complaint is closed. Case No. CIC/MP/C/2015/ The complainant, vide RTI application , sought information on seven points pertaining to the details of all home loan accounts, total number of home loans under fixed interest rate and floating rate, as on , under six heads; while also seeking details of fixed rate/floating rate home loans which had switched over/not yet switched over (with regard to rate of interest), under eight heads.

7 8.2. The CPIO did not provide any response to the complainant. Aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent, the complainant approached the Commission stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the information sought and further, he should be penalized as per the provisions of the RTI Act The matter was heard by the Commission. The complainant stated that he wanted information about the housing loan accounts from the respondent bank s Kadapa main branch. The respondents stated that they had not received this RTI application On hearing both the parties, the Commission holds that as the RTI application was not received by the CPIO, he could not provide any response to the complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, The complaint is closed. 9. The appellant has sought similar information about home loan cases from various branches of the State Bank of India in an unfocussed manner. He appears to have a grievance about the rate of interest charged by the bank on his home loan and the appellant has gone ahead seeking information of all the borrowers of home loans from the various SBI branches in the city. The Hon ble Supreme Court in CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., dated , held that, 37 Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The Commission is of the view that the various RTI applications filed by the appellant reflect only his self-interest and not public interest. Therefore, the Commission advises the appellant against misusing the RTI Act and wasting the valuable time and resources of the respondent public authority. This order disposes of all the afore-mentioned cases. Authenticated true copy: (Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Dy Registrar

8 Copy to : The Central Public Information Officer State Bank of India Regional Business Office 1/705, Dwaraka Nagar Kadapa , A.P. The First Appellate Authority State Bank of India General Manager (Network 3) Local Head Office, Bank Street Koti, Hyderabad Shri B Prabhakar Reddy 26/ Mittamadi Street Proddatur (Post & Mandal) Y.S.R. (Dist.)