Are Cash-Credit loan details of a public listed company protected under Section 8(i)(e) and (j) of RTI Act?

[alphaalpha 7]

Thanks for ALL the help I received with my previous questions.  I shall the update the same shortly since I have information that might benefit the community.  

In the meanwhile, the above titled question. A little background:

A publicly traded company had bid on my secured property, paid EMD by cheque which cashed well after the auction was held, and was later found to have bid for auction using their MCCC - Mid Corporate Cash Credit facility for Stocks.  The auction was set aside, and the bidder has gone on appeal.  In the meantime I had filed an RTI seeking relevant portion of the terms of the cash credit loan of the Company with the Bank, which allows them bid on Real Estate auctions using their loan account, and potentially purchase real estate property using company loan account.  The CPIO had responded as follows:

Loan details of the borrower of the Bank cannot be disclosed to a third party as per Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Question:

1. Is a publicly traded company considered an 'individual' for purposes of the Act, and has a right to privacy?

2. Is there not a public interest served by the disclosure of this information, since the actions of the Company is jeopardizing both the interests of shareholders, as well as the public by indulging in activities that are beyond the scope for which the Cash Credit loan was sanctioned?

I am not sure if I should appeal to the FAA and hence the question. 

Thank you.  

[Prasad GLN 1,761]

I am afraid that even before enactment of RTI, Bankers are bound by "secrecy of maintaining customer".  The customer may be a person or organization.

Instead make a complaint to RBI stating of  funds lent are being diverted to real estate.  

Cash credit account funds has to be used mainly for the purpose for which such credit facility was sanctioned and certainly if such amount was diverted to unproductive and speculative real estate purpose it is certainly indiscipline.

All this from NPA customer may be branded as harassment under RTI.

Focus on issue and relief and not distract your attention to those issues that are in no way beneficial to society or to you.

It can not be ruled out, as some bankers insist borrowers to purchase such assets to bring down NPA levels and ignore minor deviations of credit indiscipline, as bank is benefited and all higher authorities ignore such things done for interest of the bank.

Edited January 2 by Prasad GLN

[alphaalpha 7]

Thank you sir, for your kind advice.  Only wish to add that this response from the CPIO is AFTER the FAA ruled that they release this information.  The FAA also made the observation that it had been more than 3 months since RTI application was made. Even after the FAA ruling, the CPIO continued to ignore the ruling for 6 weeks, at which point I sent a reminder, and the above was their response!  

Was thinking of filing an Addendum to First Appeal, as suggested by you in a previous case.  

Thanks again.