Assam Gramin Vikash Bank vs The Assam Information Commission And 2 Ors.

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
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.06.25 23:20:37 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant