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
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.
The matter is closed.
Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta)
Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer
Page 2 of 2