Central Information Commission File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/001691 dated 25042009 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Dated: 29 July 2010 Name of the Appellant : Shri Ravi Bhatia House No. 1E78, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Corporation Bank, Zonal Office, 32, Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 008. The Appellant was represented by Shri J.L. Bhatia and Shri Laxmi. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Shiv Ram Bhat, DGM, (ii) Shri S.C. Jain, CM This case was heard on 26 July 2010.
2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated 25 April 2009,
requested the CPIO for the copies of the transactions between 1 April 2004 to
31 March 2009 in respect of the account of the Sewa Samiti, Market No. 1, NIT,
Faridabad. In his reply dated 15 May 2009, the CPIO denied the information by
claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (d) and (e) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. Against this, the Appellant preferred an appeal on 13 June 2009. The
Appellate Authority rejected the appeal in his order dated 16 July 2009 by
endorsing the decision of the CPIO. Consequently, the Appellant has
approached the CIC in second appeal.
3. During the hearing of the case, both the parties were present and made
their submissions. The Appellant claimed that the management of the Sewa
Samiti had been indulging in a lot of irregularities in maintaining their records
and accounts and, that way why, as a member of the Society he wanted to
have the details about their account. On the other hand, the Respondent
argued that the Appellant was not authorised to operate this account and they
could not disclose the details of the account without compromising the
confidence reposed by the account holder in the bank. Ordinarily, the account
details of the customer is exempt from disclosure. The only condition in which it
can be disclosed is in larger public interest. In the present case, there is nothing
to show, except the claim of the Appellant, that the disclosure of the account
details would serve any larger public interest. We, therefore, cannot compel the
CPIO to disclose this information.
4. The appeal is, thus, disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
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