Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001245
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 1 September 2011
Date of decision : 1 September 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Naresh Kumar
Advocate, Chamber No. 844,
District Court Ghaziabad, UP.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Canara Bank,
MIPD & PP Section, Circle Office,
144145, Prashad House, near Old Delhi
Chungi, Meerut.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri B B Thakur was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard this case through video conferencing. The Appellant informed
on phone that he would not be able to appear for the hearing due to some
personal engagement and wanted us to hear the case on the basis of his
second appeal. The Respondents were present in the Meerut studio of the NIC.
We heard their submissions.
3. The Appellant had wanted to know if the bank had stopped payment
against two cheques issued by an account holder. The CPIO had denied the
information to him by claiming that the bank held this information in fiduciary
capacity and could not disclose it. He had cited the provisions of Section 8(1)(e)
CIC/SM/A/2010/001245
of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his decision. The Appellate
Authority had also endorsed this decision.
4. We carefully considered the facts of the case. If, indeed, the said
account did not belong to the information seeker, the bank could not have
disclosed any information to him. Consistently, we have held that the account
details of a customer of the bank are in the nature of commercial confidence
and, therefore, cannot be, ordinarily, disclosed. Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act
clearly exempts such information from disclosure. Therefore, the CPIO was not
wrong in denying the information.
5. The Respondents did not bring any paper with them relating to this case
and, therefore, could not throw any light on the case. They submitted that due
to the shifting of the office, the relevant records had been misplaced and they
could not lay their hand on the file. Therefore, they could not confirm whether
the information sought by the Appellant pertained to his own account or to the
account of a third party. In these circumstances, we direct the CPIO to disclose
the desired information to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this
order only if the account belongs to him. If the account belongs to a third party,
he is not to disclose any such information.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
Chief Information Commissioner
CIC/SM/A/2010/001245
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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001245