Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00611-SM dated 28.11.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 8 June 2009
Appellant : Shri Abdul Majeed
Respondent : CPIO & GM (NW-II), State Bank of India, Lucknow
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri S.K. Asthana, Manager
(ii) Shri N.K. Nigam, Branch Manager
The case in brief is as under.
The Appellant had requested the Branch Manager, Laxmipur on 28
November 2007 for information regarding several details of the account
number 01170062888 of the Manik Talab Gram Panchayat. The Branch
Manager replied on 20 December 2007 and denied the information on the
ground that it was in the nature of commercial confidence the disclosure of
which was exempt under Section 8(1) (d) and (j) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. The Appellant challenged this before the first Appellate Authority
on 12 February 2008 and the first Appellate Authority disposed of his appeal
in his order dated 5 March 2008 in which he endorsed the decision of the
CPIO in denying the information. The Appellant, thereafter, preferred this
second appeal before the CIC against the above order.
2. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their
submissions. The issue for decision is whether the account details of a
customer of the Bank, even if the customer happens to be a public body like
CIC/PB/C/2008/00611-SM
the Gram Panchayat, should be disclosed. The Commission has consistently
held that the account details of customers should not be disclosed as such
information is held in commercial confidence the disclosure of which can
adversely affect the competitive position of those customers and as such
information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(10 (d) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act. The Appellant argued that since the Gram Panchayat
was a public body and its finances should be in the public domain, the
information sought should be made available in public interest. While we
agree with the Appellant that the Panchayat is a public body and its
finances and accounts should be available to the public for scrutiny, the
question is whether it is the Panchayat which should be asked to place its
accounts in the public domain or the Bank should be asked to disclose the
account details of the Gram Panchayat concerned.
3. In our opinion, it is the Gram Panchayat which should be held
accountable for making its accounts including the details of its Bank
deposits and accounts available in the public domain and a citizen has the
right under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to ask the Gram Panchayat to
disclose such details. The Bank is the custodian of the accounts of its
customers and holds the information in trust. To allow the Branch manager
of the Bank to sit in judgement and decide which information regarding an
account of the Branch should be disclosed as in public interest and which
should be denied is not desirable as it would create a chaotic situation and
the trust and confidence reposed by the account holder in the Bank would
be compromised leading to serious and adverse effect on the competitive
position of individual customers. This is precisely the reason why Section
8(1)(d) exempts information of this nature from disclosure. The ‘larger
public interest’ test as provided in that sub-section cannot be routinely
invoked to compel a Bank to disclose the account details of any customer
including a public body like the Gram Panchayat especially when the same
information could be obtained from the Gram Panchayat itself.
4. In the circumstances, we tend to agree with the CPIO and the first
CIC/PB/C/2008/00611-SM
Appellate Authority. We would like to advise the Appellant that he should
ask the Gram Panchayat instead to place the copy of its Bank Account in the
public domain.
5. With the above directions, this complaint is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra)
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.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
CIC/PB/C/2008/00611-SM