Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00324-SM dated 03.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 21.05.2009
Complainant : Shri Paras Nath Kushwah
Respondent : Union Bank of India
The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Vipin Chandra, Senior Manager (Law), is
present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the CPIO in his application dated 3 October
2007 for a large number of information in respect of the accounts of self-help groups
maintained in a particular branch of the Bank. The CPIO, in his reply dated at 30
November 2007 informed him that the information sought could not be disclosed as it
related to commercial confidence of the individual account holders and was therefore
exempt under Section 8(1) (d) (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The
Complainant had in the meanwhile sent another application dated 12 October 2007
seeking some more information in addition to the information he had already sought as
above. He has complained to the CIC that he did not receive any reply or information
from the CPIO.
3. During the hearing, the Complainant was not present in spite of notice. The
Respondent was present and furnished a copy of the reply that CPIO had sent on 13
November 2007. It is noted that the CPIO had explained how the original application
dated 3 October 2007 had not been received by him and how a copy of that
application along with his second application were received in his office only on 30
October 2007. In view of the delayed receipt of the applications for information, the
CPIO replied on 30 November 2007, that is, within the stipulated period.
4. We agree with the CPIO that the account details of the self-help group account
holders could not be disclosed as exempt under Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act being information in the nature of commercial confidence. The
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00324-SM
self-help groups maintaining accounts in the Bank cannot be distinguished from
individual account holders merely because these are collectives of individuals. As far
as the Bank is concerned, it has to treat all its customers and account holders with the
same degree of confidence. It is true that such information can also be disclosed in
larger public interest. However, in this case, the Complainant has not stated how the
disclosure of this information would serve any larger public interest. We, therefore, do
not find any merit in his complaint and, therefore, reject it.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this
Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00324-SM