Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010209732018 2026:GAU-AS:9235 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6532/2018 ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK HEAD OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5, REPRESENTED BY BHABANI KANTA DEKA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NALBARI REGIONAL OFFICE, ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK. PIN- 781335 VERSUS THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION AND 2 ORS. SITUATED AT JONAKEE COMPLEX, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781037, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2:THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER THE ASSAM INFORMATION COMMISSION SITUATED AT JONAKEE COMPLEX PANJABARI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781037. 3:BIPUL CHANDRA SARMA SON OF SRI BHUBAN CHANDRA SARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHARUA SONAPUR P.O. DHEKIPARA P.S. SIPAJHAR DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784145 Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioners(s) : Mr. D. Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Dkhar, Advocate Mr. J.H. Saikia, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 24.06.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. M. Dkhar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. J.H. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2. 3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent No. 3, on 30.10.2017, submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, Page No.# 3/8 “the Act of 2005”) before the Public Information Officer, Nalbari Regional Office of the petitioner Bank. The information sought being relevant for the adjudication of the present proceedings, the translated version as provided in Annexure-A to the writ petition, is reproduced herein under: “AN APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Department: Public Information Officer (P.I.O.) Regional Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Regional Office, Nalbari-781335 Sub: An application under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act Time: From January, 2007 to the current month of 2017. REQUIRED INFORMATION 1. How many farmers were given loan under KCC from Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Sipajhar College Chok Branch? Kindly furnish the names of the farmers, complete address, amount of loan along with photocopy of Jamabandi, land holding certificate, Land Revenue Paying receipt. 2. During that period how much amount was collected from Agricultural Insurance? How much amount has been paid to the farmers as compensation and to whom? Provide information regarding the Name, address and released amount Page No.# 4/8 etc. 3. At that period, how many farmers have repaid their loan and availed the additional loan amount? Provide information regarding the Name, address and released amount. 4. Is there any rule in Assam Gramin Vikash Bank for proving agricultural loan to Central Government Employee or State Government Employees? If yes, provide the such Bank Rules/ Guideline. 5. After repaying the agricultural loan with interest, within how many days the additional loan amount was provided to the farmers. Provide the information. 6. Provide all the Inspection Reports prepared by the Field Development Officers during that period after inspection of the agricultural field. 7. Complete residential address and official address of the Branch Manager and Field Development Officers during that period. Yours faithfully Sri Bipul Chandra Sarma Father: Late Bhuban Chandra Sarma Village:Garowa Sonapur (Ka) PO-Dhekipara PS-Sipajhar District-Darrang 30/10/2017” 4. The issue involved in the instant proceedings, as would be Page No.# 5/8 apparent from the impugned order, pertains to the information sought at Serial Nos. 1, 3 and 6, which are reproduced hereinabove. 5. Pursuant to the said application, the Regional Manager & Public Information Officer informed the respondent No. 3 that the information sought was exempted under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Act of 2005. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that the petitioner Bank was under compulsion to maintain secrecy regarding the affairs of its customers. 6. An Appeal thereagainst was preferred by the respondent No. 3 before the Chief Information Officer. Pursuant thereto, vide an order dated 04.01.2018, the Appellate Authority provided information relating to Query Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, but declined to provide information pertaining to Query Nos. 3 and 6. 7. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 3 approached the Assam Information Commission. In pursuance thereto, an order was passed on 19.05.2018 whereby the directions so issued are reproduced herein under: “(i) As the information sought in point number 1 appears to be voluminous, the SPIO whose office is the holder of the information shall allow the Appellant to inspect the records Page No.# 6/8 relating to it by fixing and communicating to the Appellant date and time for inspection during office hours, (ii) The information furnished already and the records relating thereto shall be reviewed and information sought for shall be provided in the format in which they are available. In respect of point number 3 and 6, the Public Authority shall review the nature of the information sought for and determine whether the exemption from disclosing this can be justifiably claimed. If it is determined that sufficient justification exits for exempting the same, the justification shall be explained in writing to the Appellant. Otherwise, the information sought for shall be provided within 15 days of receipt of this order, free of cost.” 8. From the above quoted directions, it appears that insofar as Query No. 1 is concerned, it was observed that the information sought was voluminous and as such, it was directed that the respondent No. 3 be granted inspection of the records by fixing and communicating a date and time for such inspection during office hours. The second aspect, which is of more importance, is that the petitioner was directed to review whether the information sought in Query Nos. 3 and 6 was entitled to exemption or not. The petitioner was further directed that, if there was sufficient justification for exempting the information, the same should be informed to the respondent No. 3 in writing, else, the petitioner was directed to provide information within fifteen days. In other Page No.# 7/8 words, there was no direction upon the petitioner to provide the information sought in Query Nos. 3 and 6, but if justification could be provided, then the information should be provided. 9. This Court heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. It is relevant to take note of that loans under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme had been granted, as would be apparent from the information provided on 04.01.2018. The information sought at Query No. 1 relates to Jamabandis, landholding certificates and land revenue receipts, which are public documents. In addition to that, the respondent No. 3 sought for furnishing the names of the persons to whom such loans were granted. 11. The petitioner Bank is not a private Bank. It is a public bank and these loans are disbursed through the petitioner's Bank. It is in public interest that such information be provided, and there cannot be a claim for privacy or exemption in providing the information which were sought for at Query No. 1. The records being voluminous, the respondent No. 2 rightly directed that inspection should be granted. Therefore, there is no question for interference with the same. Page No.# 8/8 12. Now coming to Query Nos. 3 and 6, it is seen that the petitioner was granted liberty to provide justification, if such information cannot be divulged. Instead of providing the justifications, the petitioner challenged the impugned order by filing the present writ petition. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the respondent No. 2 insofar as the direction passed for Query Nos. 3 and 6. 13. Considering the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, for which, the writ petition stands dismissed. 14. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.06.25 23:20:37 +05'30'