Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2010/001599, 1601 & 1602
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 21 October 2011
Date of decision : 21 October 2011
Name of the Appellant : Shri Keshav
S/o. Ram Chander Singh,
R/o. House No. 1550, Shanti Vihar,
Ganeshpur Rudaki, Distt -Haridwar,
Uttrakhand.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Circle Office,
Haridwar, Uttrakhand.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Jivan Chand Kulba, CPIO was
present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. These three cases were heard together through video conferencing. The
Appellant was present in our chamber. The Respondent was present in the
Haridwar studio. We heard both their submissions.
3. In three separate RTI applications, the Appellant had requested the
CPIO to provide some details about three separate accounts maintained by
different customers in the bank. The CPIO declined the information by claiming
CIC/SM/A/2010/001599, 1601 & 1602
that it was third party information.
4. Indeed, the Appellant had asked for details about the accounts of other
customers of the bank. Such information is held by the bank in commercial
confidence. Therefore, the CPIO cannot ordinarily disclose such information.
Section 8 (1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act clearly exempts such
information from disclosure.
5. The Appellant submitted that someone duped him by persuading him to
deposit various amounts of money in these three accounts with the assurance
that he would get a loan sanctioned from the bank. He claimed that even after
he deposited various amounts in these accounts, no loan was sanctioned. He
wanted the details about these accounts in order to find out the identity of the
person who had cheated him. Even if there is some truth in what the Appellant
claims, at the best, this is a matter which should be reported to the police for
investigation rather than requiring the bank to disclose the details of its
customer accounts. It is only through an investigation that the facts of the case
can be ascertained. The Appellant is free to consider approaching the police
authorities if he so likes. As far as the present cases are concerned, the CPIO
or the bank was right in not disclosing the information even though he had not
cited any of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his
decision.
6. The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
CIC/SM/A/2010/001599, 1601 & 1602
Chief 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)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SM/A/2010/001599, 1601 & 1602