CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/C/2015/0000095
Satinder Kumar Dhawan Vs. Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure
Development Corportion Ltd
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI:8122014 FA: Hearing:08062015
Complaint: 3032015 Closed Decision:10062015
Parties Present:
The Complainant is present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Mr.
Thomas Cherian, Mr. B.N.Lal and Mr. M.C.Yadav.
FACTS
:
2. The Complainant through his RTI application wants to have inspection of records, copy
of records in respect of 3164 Flats constructed under” Rajeev Gandhi Housing Project”,
policy regarding inspection, any other details regarding inspection. Having received no
reply within prescribed time, appellant filed first appeal. First Appellate Authority directed to
facilitate inspection within 15 days. Claiming non furnishing of information, appellant
approached the Commission.
CIC/SA/A/2015/000095 Page 1
DECISION:
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The Complainant submitted that he wanted
information regarding 3164 Flats constructed under” Rajeev Gandhi Housing Project”,
policy regarding inspection, etc. The respondent authority submitted that they did not
receive the hearing notice for this appeal and hence they did not come prepared for this
case. But they said that consequent upon the FAA order for inspection, they have provided
inspection to the complainanton 8122014 but he did not get any information as there is no
policy regarding inspection. As the complainant has got the required information, the
Commission closes the appeal.
(M Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(Babu Lal)
Deputy Registrar
Address of parties
1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt. of Delhi
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited, Technical Centre Building,
Wazirpur Industrial Area
DELHI110052
Mrgirish Prasad Gupta vs Department Of Posts on 17 October, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/002477/6209
17 October 2014
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Girish Prasad Gupta
Vill: Shokhara-02, Rajendra Path,
Post: Baroni, - 851112
Begusarai, Bihar
Respondent : CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Begusarai Division
Begusarai, Bihar.
RTI application filed on : 07/05/2013
PIO replied on : 19/08/2013
First appeal filed on : 22/07/2013
First Appellate Authority order : 19/08/2013
Second Appeal dated : 17/09/2013
Information sought:-
The appellant has sought the information related to the two-year, three-year and five-year TD
Accounts opened at Sh. Ram Press sub post office Begusarai in the year 2010-11 and 2011-12.
Also wants the complete details related to the same.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Girish Prasad Gupta through VC
Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kishore Singh CPIO’s representative through VC
The appellant stated that he has not been provided proper information in response to his
RTI application dated 07/05/2013. He further stated that in compliance of the FAA’s order the
respondents have merely informed the number of TD accounts opened but have not given any
other details like the name of the account holder, the amount of deposit etc. The CPIO’s
representative contended that the information relates to third party(s), is personal in nature and
exempt under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. He further stated that as per the departmental
rules information relating to customers is confidential and cannot be disclosed to any other
person.
Decision notice:
Accounts of customers maintained at post offices/banks are held under fiduciary
relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and exempt from
Page 1 of 2
disclosure to third party under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information
is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
In the matter at hand the appellant has not established that the information sought is for
larger public purpose. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the respondent’s decision.
Mr.Tushar Maheshwari vs Ministry Of Railways on 28 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003432/VS/06314
Appeal No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003432/VS
Dated: 28.02.2014
Appellant: Shri Tushar Maheshwari,
R/o 1,Shantinagar College Road,
Opp. Jadavji Nagar,
BhujGujarat.
Respondent: Public Information Officer,
Dy. C.C.O., Western Railway,
O/o Chief Commercial Manager,
IIIrd Flr, Station Bldg.,
Churchgate, Mumbai20.
Date of Hearing: 28.02.2014
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 28.06.2012 seeking information
pertaining to a certain application for refund of claim.
2. The CPIO responded on 17.07.2012. The appellant filed his first appeal on
21.07.012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 09.08.2012
and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 16.10.2012
with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through
video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 28.06.2012 and stated that he
had made an application on 29.05.2006 to the respondent for refund of claim but no
action has been taken by the respondent so far.
5. The respondent stated that the CPIO in his reply to the appellant on 17.7.2012
has informed that the subject case pertained to the year 2006 and the respondent
organization is keeping the records up to 3 years only. The respondent stated that as per
record keeping book of the railways, their commercial department had kept this record
for only 3 years.
6. What emerged from the hearing was that the respondent will send a copy of
the rule of the record keeping book of the railways to the appellant in context of the RTI
application.
Decision:
7.The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, a
copy of the record retention norms along with any other rules pertinent to the RTI
application.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the
parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
Shri.Puskar Lal Ameta vs Department Of Posts on 10 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2013/000224/4529
10 February 2014
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Pushkar Lal Ameta
Vill. & Post: Intali,
Tehsil: Mavali,
Udaipur - 313205, Rajasthan
Respondent : CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices
Department of Posts
Bhilwara Division,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311001
RTI application filed on : 17/03/2012
PIO replied on : 25/04/2012
First appeal filed on : 10/05/2012
First Appellate Authority order : 08/06/2012
Second Appeal received on : 03/01/2013
Information sought:
The appellant through his RTI Application has sought the copies of proof of delivery and AD of 4
parcel/registered post, out of which he wants the certified copy of one delivery receipt of AD No-
584 in his second appeal.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Pushkar Lal Ameta through VC
Respondent: Mr. S L Meena CPIO’s representative through VC
The CPIO’s representative stated that the appellant had requested for proof of delivery of a
parcel and was advised to deposit a fee of Rs.2/- for providing a copy but he has not paid the fee.
The appellant protested stating that the respondents have no right to claim any fee as they had
offered to supply the information after the mandatory period of 30 days was over.
Decision notice:
The CPIO is directed to supply the information requested by the appellant in his RTI
application dated 17/03/2012 immediately. The information should be provided free of cost.
The CPIO, who received the appellant’s RTI application, is warned to exercise due care for
future to ensure that the correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI
Page 1 of 2
applicant(s) as per the provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may
be initiated in future.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000371/LS
Appellant : Manoj Jain
Respondent : Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Date of hearing : 26.8.2013
Date of decision : 26.8.2013
FACTS
Heard today dated 26.8.2013. Appellant present. The
public authority is not represented, despite notice.
2. During the hearing, the appellant requests for disclosure of
information only on one para of his RTI application dated 16.7.2012. The said
para is extracted below:-
“Reason(s) for not relieving Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, presently posted as
Additional Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai in terms of CBEC
order No. 97/2012 dated the 7th June, 2012 issued vide F. No. A-
2012/02/2012-Addl.”
3. During the hearing, it transpires that Shri Arvind Kumar
Singh has since been relieved from his post from Mumbai. Hence, the appellant
wishes to withdraw the appeal. Hence, dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central 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.
(K L Das)
Dy. Registrar
Address of parties
1. Shri S. P. Pradhan
Dy. Commissioner of Customs and CPIO,
O/o the Commissioner5 of Customs (General),
RTI Cell, New Custom House, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai – 400001
Mr.Naresh Kumar vs Border Security Force on 24 November, 2011
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/C/2011/000759
Name of Complainant : Mr. Naresh Kumar
Name of Respondent : Seema Suraksha Bal
ORDER
The Commission has received a complaint dated 18.6.2011 from Mr.
Naresh Kumar u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, against the Seema Suraksha Bal for
deemed refusal to his RTI request dated 22.2.2011 and first appeal dated
2.4.2011.
2. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under sections 19 and 18 of the RTI
Act, viz., appeals and complaints, this case is remitted to CPIO, Seema
Suraksha Bal, New Delhi (along with copy of complaint and RTI-request), with
the following directions:
(i) In case no reply has been given by CPIO to the Complainant to his
RTI-request dated 22.2.1011, CPIO should furnish a reply to the
Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order.
(ii) In case CPIO has already given a reply to the Complainant in the
matter, he should furnish a copy of his reply to the Complainant
within one week of receipt of this order.
(iii) CPIO should invariably indicate to the Complainant the name and
address of the 1st Appellate Authority, before whom the
Complainant can file first-appeal, if any.
3. In case the Complainant is not satisfied with the reply received from CPIO,
he, under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, may within the time prescribed, file his
first-appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA).
Case No. CIC/SS/C/2011/000759
4. On receipt of the first appeal from the petitioner as per the above
directions, AA should dispose of the appeal within the period stipulated in the RTI
Act.
5. In case the Complainant is not satisfied with the decision of First Appellate
Authority, he is at liberty to file a second appeal afresh before the Commission,
under section 19(3), along with complaint u/s 18, if any, within the prescribed
time limit.
The complaint is disposed of with above directions.
Sd/-
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
24.11.2011
Authenticated true copy:
(D.C. Singh)
Deputy Registrar
Copy to:
1. Mr. Naresh Kumar,
Unit 5 V Vahini,
Seema Suraksha Bal,
Ram Singh Nagar,
Shri Gangananagar,
Rajasthan.
2. The C.P.I.O.,
Deputy Inspector General (Telecommunication),
Seema Suraksha Bal,
Lodhi Road, Block No.10,
New Delhi – 110003.
Smt.Chitta Kumari vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 24 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002292/15898
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002292
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Smt. Chitta Kumari
C/o Milan General Store,
Bird Line, Kalicut Post Office,
Prathrapur Village,
Port Blair,
Respondent (1) : PIO
Andaman & Nicobar Administration
O/o the Chief Secretary
Port Blair,
Andaman & Nicobar Island
(2) : Public Information Officer
Andaman & Nicobar Administration
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
Secretariat, Port Blair,
Andaman & Nicobar Island
(3) : Mr. Yogesh Pratap
Public Information Officer & ADM
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
O/o The Dy. Commissioner,
South Andaman District,
Port Blair-744101.
(4) : Mr. Hussain Ali
PIO & Assistant Director (Admin)
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Public Works Department
South Andaman District,
Port Blair-744101.
(5) : Mr. B. Krishnan
Assistant Secretary (AR) & PIO
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Administrative Reforms Department
South Andaman District,
Port Blair-744101.
RTI application filed on : 14/03/2011
PIO replied on : 11/04/2011
First Appeal filed on : 25/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 06/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 26/07/2011
Page 1 of 4
The information sought: The date wise action taken by A&N Administration on my application date 1st
December, 2010 submitted before the Hon’ble it. Governor and the chief Secretary of A & N
Administration (Xerox copy enclosed for your ready reference).
1. Indicate the writing reason for not reverting to one Executive Engineer ( C )and three Assistant
Engineer ( C ) from the Executive Engineer (C) to Assistant Engineer ( C ) and from the Assistant
Engineer ( C ) to junior Engineer ( C ) respectively as they are not belongs to schedules tribes of A &
N Islands and their caste or tribes/ tribal Community is not specified in constitution ( A & N Islands )
Scheduled Tribes Order,1959 vide GSR No. 504 dt. 31.03.1959. Please refer my application referred
in above Sl No. 1.
2. Indicate the writing reason for not filling up the reserved posts of scheduled castes in promoti0on
from feeder cadre to promotion quota of various posts like, Group ‘D’ Group ‘C’ Group ‘B’ and
Group ‘A’ in the various deportment of A & N administration.
The PIO reply:
1. PIO, Assistant Commissioner was given reply to the Appellant as under:
1. The matter regarding employment for the post of Surveyor pertains to District Office, South
Andaman.
2. The matter regarding reversion of one Executive Engineer and three Assistant Engineers pertains to
APWD.
3. No Scheduled Caste has been declared in A & N Islands and hence Scheduled Caste reservation is
not followed in this UT.
2. PIO, Assistant Director was given reply to the Appellant as under:
Sl. Information/documents sought for Reply
1. The date wise action taken by A&N Administration on my application date 1 Not pertained to
December, 2010 submitted this department
Before the Hon’ble Lt. Governor and the Chief Secretary of A&N Administration
(Xerox copy enclosed) for your ready reference.
2. 3. Indicate the writing reason for not reverting to one Executive Engineer ( C ) Queries do not
and three Assistant Engineer ( C ) from the Executive Engineer (C) to come under
Assistant Engineer ( C ) and from the Assistant Engineer ( C ) to junior section 2(f) of
Engineer ( C ) respectively as they are not belongs to schedules tribes of A & N the RTIAct.
Islands and their caste or tribes/ tribal Community is not specified in
constitution ( A & N Islands ) Scheduled Tribes Order,1959 vide GSR No. 504
dt. 31.03.1959. Please refer my application referred in above Sl No. 1.
3. Indicate the writing reason for not filling up the reserved posts of scheduled castes As stated in the
in promoti0on from feeder cadre to promotion quota of various posts like, Group point 2 above
‘D’ Group ‘C’ Group ‘B’ and Group ‘A’ in the various deportment of A & N
administration.
3. PIO, Assistant Director was given reply to the Appellant as under:
S.No. Information/documents sought for Reply
1. The date wise action taken by A&N Administration on my application The information asked
date 1 December, 2010 submitted for does not pertain to
Before the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and the Chief Secretary of A&N the department.
Administration (Xerox copy enclosed) for your ready reference.
2. 4. Indicate the writing reason for not reverting to one Executive The information asked
Engineer ( C )and three Assistant Engineer ( C ) from the for is pertains to
Executive Engineer (C) to Assistant Engineer ( C ) and from the APWD and not related
Assistant Engineer ( C ) to junior Engineer ( C ) respectively as to the Department.
they are not belongs to schedules tribes of A & N Islands and Page 2 of 4
their caste or tribes/ tribal Community is not specified in
constitution ( A & N Islands ) Scheduled Tribes Order,1959 vide
GSR No. 504 dt. 31.03.1959. Please refer my application referred
in above Sl No. 1.
3. Indicate the writing reason for not filling up the reserved posts of No Government servant has
scheduled castes in promoti0on from feeder cadre to promotion quota been appointed in the
department under schedule
of various posts like, Group ‘D’ Group ‘C’ Group ‘B’ and Group ‘A’ caste quota. Hence question
in the various deportment of A & N administration. of promotion of schedule
caste dose not arise.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The appellant was received an unsatisfactory reply from the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
In order to dispose of the appeal, the records of the case like RTI application, reply furnished by the
P10/Assistant Secretary (AR), the appeal application of the appellant and the relevant portion of the RTI
Act have been gone through and it is observed that the information sought by the appellant in her
application dated 14.03.2011 is not held by the PIO/Assistant Secretary (AR) which is in fact scattered
with more than one other public authorities. Therefore the PIO/Assistant Secretary (AR) explained that he
had already transferred the RTI application dated 14.03.2011 to other public authorities concerned under
intimation to the appellant to her given address vide letter No. 3-38/201 0-AR(PF)/59 dated 01.04.2011.
He further mentioned that in response to Admn’s letter dated 01.04.2011, the other public authorities i.e.
the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare has furnished reply in respect of item 3 of annexure to RTI
application date 14.032011 to the appellant to her given address. Similarly the Assistant Director (Admn)
of APWD also furnished reply to item 2 annexure to RTI application dated 14.03 .201 to the appellant.
However the reply to item 1, shall be furnished by Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman.
In view of the above I am of the considered opinion the appeal is left now without any substance
and the same is therefore dismissed. However, if the appellant still feels aggrieved on any point ,she may
seek a personnel hearing from The undersigned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The applicant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and unsatisfactory order was passed by the First
Appellate Authority.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Smt. Chitta Kumari on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Pratap, Public Information Officer & ADM; Mr. Hussain Ali, PIO & Assistant
Director (Admin); Mr. B. Krishnan, Assistant Secretary (AR) & PIO on video conference from NIC-Port
Blair Studio;
The information regarding query-1 has not been provided since the officials in the Administration
appears to be completely incompetent to understand where this information would be. The Commission
therefore directs the PIO of the Chief Secretary’s Office to provide the information on the Action on the
Appellant Complaint of 01/12/2010 in the following format:
Date on which Name and designation of Action taken Date on which forwarded to
Complaint received The officer receiving it. Next officer/office.
*there will be as many rows as the number of officers who handled the complaint.
Attested photocopies of all letters and notings will be provided. Page 3 of 4
The PIO states that there is no reason on record for query-2.
As regards query-3 PIO/AC Directorate of Tribal Welfare is directed to provide the information after
obtaining it if necessary under Section 5(4) and provide it to the Appellant before 20 December 2011
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO office of the Chief Secretary is directed to provide the information on
query-1 as directed above to the Appellant before 20 December 2011.
The PIO of Directorate of Tribal Welfare Department is directed to provide the
information on query-3 to the Appellant before 20 December 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Miss.Lalita Kumari vs Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar on 24 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001390/15907
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2011/001390
COMPLAINT REMANDED TO First Appellate Authority
UT of Andaman & Nicobar
Mill Division, Chatham,
Port Blair - 744102.
Complainant Miss.Lalita Kumari
D/o Late Ram Govind,
R/o School Line, P.O Junglighat,
Port Blair-744103.
Public Information Officer Public Information Officer
UT of Andaman & Nicobar
O/o The Dy. Conservator of Forests,
Mill Division, Chatham,
Port Blair - 744102.
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed a RTI application with the PIO on 09/05/2011 asking for
certain information. She received a reply from the PIO, which she found unsatisfactory.
The Complainant therefore filed a Complaint with the Commission (15/11/2011) under
Section 18 of the RTI Act.
It must be noted that there is an alternate and efficacious remedy of First Appeal
available under section 19(1) of the RTI Act. It appears that the Complainant has failed to
avail the same in the instant case. Consequently, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has
not had the chance to review the PIO’s decision as envisaged under the RTI Act.
Decision
In view of the aforesaid, the instant mater is remanded to the FAA.
The Commission hereby directs the FAA to treat the copy of the Complaint
(enclosed herewith) as the First Appeal and decide the matter in accordance
with the provisions of the RTI Act after giving all concerned parties an
opportunity to be heard.
The FAA is directed to peruse all the relevant documents during the hearing and examine
whether the information provided by the PIO is complete, relevant and correct. Where the
FAA is satisfied that the information provided by the PIO is as per the records, the First
Appeal shall be disposed of. In the event, there are any deficiencies in the information
provided by the PIO, the FAA shall direct the PIO to provide the complete information in
reply to the RTI application to the Complainant.
The Complaint is disposed of.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24th November2011
Enclosed: Copy of Complaint dated 15-11-2011.
Copy of PIO’s reply dated 16-05-2011; and
Copy of RTI application dated 09-05-2011.
Shri.Narayandas Hiralaji Sarda vs Syndicate Bank on 24 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002302/15903
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002302
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Narayandas Hiralaji Sarda
Plot No. 139, Wardhaman Nagar,
Nagpur - 440008
Respondent : PIO
Syndicate Bank
90, Canal Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur - 440010
RTI application filed on : 12-04-2011
PIO replied on : 26-04-2011
First Appeal filed on : 24-05-2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 24-06-2011
Second Appeal received on : 24-08-2011
Information Sought:-
The Appellant has sought the following information:-
(i) Subject matter of information:
NAGPUR BUSINESS FORMS PVT. LTD.
REGD OFFICE 84 CA NAGPUR
TERM LOAN AND WORKING CAPITAL
(ii) Period to which the information relates:
WORKING CAPITAL LIMIT & STOCK STATEMENT OF NBF COMPANY & STOCK
CHECK BY BANK FROM 01/04/2010 TO 31/03/2011 MONTHLY
(iii) Description of information required: (Details may be attached on additional A4 size paper if
required)
CERTIFY COPY WORKING CAPITAL LIMIT & MONTHY STOCK STATEMENT OF
THE COMPANY & STOCK CERTIFY BY BANK
(iv) Whether information is required by post or in person : BY HAND
(v) Incase by post (Ordinary, Registered or Speed):
(vi) XEROX COPY OF HIGH COURT ORDER OF ARBITATION AND ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT COPY SIGN BY GOVINDLAL SARDA, NARAYANDAS
SARDA.HAR!KISHAN SARDA LIST OF COMPAY MATTER IN ARBITATION NBF
PIO's Reply:-
The appellant was provided with the following reply :-
The information as sought in your application is relating to the personal accounts of our customers, as
far as you are concerned, customer of the Bank is third party and no public interest is observed in your
request. Also the information sought is of commercial confidence and trade secret. Hence, the
Page 1 of 3
information cannot be revealed under Section 8 (1) (j) and under Section 8(1) (d) respectively of the
RTI Act 2005.
Further, the information sought by you pertains to customers of the bank. Under Section 13 of the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Ac 1970, banks are prohibited from
revealing the information relating to their customers. Hence, the information sought cannot be
revealed to you. Also the information sought by you would disproportionably divert the resources of
the Public Authority and is exempted under section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
I have gone through all the papers placed before me and observe that the reply of the PIO is in order.
You may be a share holder of the company. But the Bank is not empowered to reveal the account
details of its customers/account holder (M/s. Nagpur Business Forms in the present ease) to the
shareholders of the Company. As per Banking Companies Act, 1970, Banker has to maintain
confidentiality of account details of its customer. Hence, rejection of your application by the PIO is in
Order. I do not find any merit in your appeal hence rejected.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given by the PIO and Unsatisfactory Order was passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Murthy, Advocate representing Mr. Narayandas Hiralaji Sarda on video conference
from NIC-Nagpur Studio;
Respondent : Absent;
The Appellant claims that he is a shareholder of Nagpur Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. and hence he
is entitled to get information on its bank transactions. As far as the bank is concerned it will recognize
the company or its authorized signatories and every shareholder of the Bank cannot be given
information of the Company by the Bank. .
The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public
authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;’
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that
relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those
that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another
important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of
information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer
chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for
the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the
information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships
usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided
in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to
have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
Page 2 of 3
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it
because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit.
Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public
interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public
interest has been demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Mr.Sudheer Kumar vs Syndicate Bank on 24 November, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002319/15909
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002319
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Sudheer Kumar,
Kolayil House,
P.O. Chemanchery, Koyilandy,
Kozhikkodu (Dist.), Kerala State.
.
Respondent : Mr. Ashokan
PIO & Dy. General Manger,
Syndicate Bank,
O/o The Dy. General Manager,
Kannur Main Branch,
Kannur, Kerala..
RTI application filed on : 22/02/2011
PIO replied on 18/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : 18/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order of : 19/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/08/2011
Information Sought:
1. When the cheque no. 570914, draws at Syndicate Bank Pannur Branch, has been received in your
office as or after December 09, 2010, from the South Indian Bank at Chemacherry Branch? If yes at
what date which had been received? At what date which was sent back?
2. Photo state copies of the inward register, which shows the details of cheques received from other
branches for collection and dispatch register which shows cheques etc sent back to other banks, from
09/12/2010 to 20/12/2010.
The PIO Reply
1. On verification of the records it is seen that the cheque bearing No. 570914 was not received by the
branch from South Indian Bank, Chemacherry Branch during the period from 09/12/2010 to
10/02/2011. In view of the same we are unable to provide other information sought to you.
2. With regard to query no 2, It is internal document/record of the bank. Hence, PIO cannot provide the
same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
“I have gone through all the papers placed before me. In your appeal, you have requested, me to direct
PIO to furnish the information. I observe that the reply of PIO is in order. In your application you sought
the information of Kannue Branch now in your appeal you are improving your version that you want the
information of Panoor Branch instead of Kannur Branch, Under RTI Act applicant cannot improve their
version at the stage of appeal. If you want any fresh information you have to make a fresh application to
the PIO. With regard to your second query, I am upholding the reply of PIO. Moreover I observe that
document requested by you contain information of other customers also which is held under commercial
confidence of the Bank hence the same is exempted U/s 8(1) of RTI Act.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information had been given by the PIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Ashokan, PIO & Dy. General Manger on video conference from NIC-Kannur Studio;
The PIO has provided information on query-1 that the cheque was not received in the Kannur
Branch. However, the PIO states that he has subsequently got information the cheque was received in the
PANOOR Branch on 17/12/2010 and was returned on 20/10/2010 for want of funds.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the record has been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
24 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)