Sharat Sabharwal DECISION
1. This matter arises out of the interim order No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002118/SH dated 24.10.2014 issued by a single member bench, in which the constitution of a larger bench was recommended to hear this case. The Chief Information Commissioner constituted a division bench comprising the following members:--
"1. Shri Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner.
2. Shri Sudhir Bhargava, Information Commissioner."
2. The Appellant had filed an RTI application dated 16.5.2013 containing the following queries:--
"a) Details business mix of the bank for the months March and April 2013. (Daily figures of total deposits, total advances and total business mix).
b) Details of Restructured accounts which have subsequently turned NPA during three year period commencing from 1st April, 2011 to 31st March, 2013.
c) Details of action initiated by the bank against Bank Officials who have indulged in window-dressing of the business mix parameters in past three years.
d) Details of action initiated against Bank officials for classification of accounts as Standard subsequently classified into NPA by Statutory/RBI auditors.
e) Details of action initiated against bank Officials/Statutory Auditors classification of accounts as Standard subsequently classified into NPA by RBI Auditors."
3. The CPIO responded on 26.6.2013 and with reference to point (a) of the application, stated that the information was exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, since its disclosure would prejudicially affect the economic interest of the Respondent Bank which is a "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India. He claimed exemption from disclosure of information on point (a) under Section 8 (1) (d) also. The information on point (b) was provided, but with regard to points (c) to (e), the CPIO responded that the information sought was not available because it was not held in the form requested and required analysis of data for compilation. In his order dated 31.8.2013, the FAA stated that the available information had been provided and added that the information regarding details of the business mix of the bank, sought at point (a), was a matter of commercial confidence under Section 8 (1) (d) and its disclosure would prejudicially affect the economic interest of the bank which is a "State" within the meaning of article 12 of the Constitution of India.
4. The matter was heard by the division bench on 13.6.2016. The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Thane. The Respondents were represented by Shri R.K. Gupta, AGM, who was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai.
Submissions made during the hearing
5. The Appellant submitted that his request for information is three years old and he is yet to get it. The Respondents had submitted during the hearing before the single member bench that the information concerning the business mix of the bank as on 31.3.2013 was made public by them. The Appellant stated that if the above disclosure did not hurt the economic interest of the bank, it was not clear how disclosure of the information sought by him regarding the business mix for the months of March and April 2013 would hurt the said interest. The Appellant challenged invocation of Section 8 (1) (d) by the Respondents and stated that in his view, the information sought would reveal how the actions of the bank are prejudicially affecting the interests of its shareholders. He added that the bank sanctions credit facilities, which remain unutilised. On the last day of the quarter, the unutilised credit is disbursed to the borrowers and the amount so generated is transferred to their deposit accounts, thereby artific........