CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001617/SG/14592
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001617/SG
Appellant : Mr. Anand Prakash Kesari,
Near Masjid,
Makhania Kuan, Thana Pirbharoe,
Post Bankipore, Patna
Respondent : Mr. B. N. Jha
PIO& Dy. Zonal Manager
Bank Of India,
R. Block, Chankaya Place,
Patna-16
RTI application filed on : 16/07/2010
PIO replied : 02/08/2010
First Appeal filed on : 08/09/2010
First Appellate Authority order : No reply
Second Appeal filed on : 20/11/2010
Information sought:
1. Information regarding dimension of property (Chauhaddi of the business premises) under loan
with the bank by borrower of below mentioned loan Account.
2. Information regarding inquiry and sanctioning of the loan Account 440730110000029 by
bank.
(Appellant claims to be Elder Brother of borrower and a party to the business premises.)
Reply of PIO:
Information not related with the appellant.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Appellant lucidly establishes relation with the borrower and property but information denied as third
party.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
Information not related with the appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information provided to appellant also no hearing done over the first appeal filed by the appellant.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. B. N. Jha, PIO& Dy. Zonal Manager on video conference from NIC-Patna Studio;
The appellant had sought information about customers of 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.
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.
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
14 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (pr)