CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002137/15834
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002137
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.Jaiprakash J. Bhatia
C/o N.K. Mudnaney,
Advocate, 1-B, Lentin Chambers,
Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai-400023.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Dena Bank
Mumbai Suburban Regional Office Sharda Bhavan,
JVPD Scheme, V.M. Mehta Road,
Ville Parle West, Mumbai-400056.
RTI application filed on : 09/03/2011
PIO replied on : 31/03/2011
First Appeal filed on : Not enclosed
First Appellate Authority order of : 18/05/2011
Second Appeal received on : 12/07/2011
Information sought:
The Appellant had sought information relating to Current Account no. 009411001463 (CA Gen 126059)
in the name of the Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation.
Reply of PIO:
"We refer to your above request seeking disclosure of information relating to Current Account no.
009411001463 (CA Gen 126059) in the name of the Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation.
Please note that the account holder has not consented for the disclosure of Information sought by you. We
are therefore unable to disclose the desired information as it is of commercial confidence and is exempted
from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Not enclosed.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
"I have carefully gone through the Application dated 09.03.2011, the reply of SPIO dated 31.03.2011 &
contention raised by the Appellant in the present Appeal dated 13.04.2011. I have also called for the
comments of the SPIO, MSRO in this regard. I agree with the decision of SPIO that the information
sought by the appellant is personal & hence exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (d)(j)) of RTI
Act as bank is duty bound to maintain secrecy of its customers account."
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a perusal
of the papers it appears that the appellant is stating that the Drafts for which he is seeking information
were made in the name of his company M/s Jaideep Constructions (I) Pvt. Ltd. In view of this the
Commission is directing the PIO to inform the Appellant if the said drafts were indeed made in the name
of his company i.e. M/s Jaideep Constructions (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant whether the said
drafts were made in the name of M/s Jaideep Constructions (I) Pvt. Ltd.. The PIO will give
the information to the Appellant before 15 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
22 November 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
