Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000299 dated 14-06-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 22 February 2010
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Anju Rajput
332, Kirti Nagar,
Ferozepur City - 152 002.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, State Bank of Patiala,
Region - II,
Bathinda.
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri T. Rajkumar,
(ii) Shri Vimal Goyal
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in her application dated 14 June
2008, requested the CPIO both for the photo copies of three cheques paid in
favour of three different individuals and also for the date of the payment of
the cheques. The CPIO declined to provide her with the desired information
on the ground that it concerned third-party customers and did not serve any
public interest. Against this, she preferred an appeal on 29 August 2008. The
Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal in a very brief order dated 17
October 2008 in which he held that the desired information was exempt
from disclosure under Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. The Appellant has challenged this order in her second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was not
present in spite of notice. The Respondent was present in the Bathinda
studio of the NIC. We heard his submissions. He argued that the information
sought was squarely about the account details of third-party customers
which the Bank held in commercial confidence and could not, obviously,
disclose such information without affecting adversely the competitive
CIC/SM/A/2009/000299
position of those parties. He submitted that Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act
exempted the disclosure of such information. We agree with his arguments.
The CIC has consistently held that such information, namely, the account
details of third-party customers held by a Bank cannot be disclosed unless it
would serve a larger public interest. In this case, there is no ostensible
public interest to be served by the disclosure of the desired information.
Thus, there is no merit in this appeal.
4. The case is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(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
CIC/SM/A/2009/000299