Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00833-SM dated 27.04.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 02.03.2009
Appellant : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta
Respondent : Indian Bank
The Appellant is not present, in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent Shri K.G. Balasubramanian, Assistant General
Manager, is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in his letter dated 27 April 2007, for a
number of information in respect of the leasing of a certain house by the Bank to locate
one of its branches. He followed it up with three more requests. He received no response
from the CPIO on the first three applications. The CPIO, finally, in his reply dated 2
January 2008, provided him with partial information but denied a number of information
on the ground that it was in the nature of commercial confidence or was held in a
fiduciary capacity. The Appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority on
18 January 2008 which that authority decided in its order dated to 6 May 2008. The first
Appellate Authority endorsed the decision of the CPIO. Now, the Appellant has
approached us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. We heard the
submissions of the Respondent. We are surprised to note that the CPIO had not
responded to a number of requests filed by the Appellant though the Right to Information
(RTI) Act clearly provides that the CPIO has to respond with or without the information
within 30 days. In the final reply that the CPIO sent to the Appellant, we note that he
denied a number of information by taking recourse to some of the exemption provisions
of Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act . We do not entirely agree with the
reasoning given by the CPIO while denying some of these information though. For
example, information in respect of the name of the person in whose name the rent for the
premises is being paid or the rate of rent cannot be described as in the nature of
commercial confidence. Surely, the public has a right to know the name of the owner of
the premises which the Bank has leased out to locate its branch. Similarly, the rent being
paid for such premises should be placed in the public domain as there is nothing
confidential or personal about such information. The information in respect of the
periodicity of the lease agreement and the name of the landlord cannot be held back on
the ground that such information amounts to commercial confidence or is held in a
fiduciary capacity. However, we agree with the CPIO that information in respect of the
details of a loan sanctioned by the Bank to the owner of the said premises and the name
of the person operating a certain account into which the rent was being credited could not
be disclosed as it obviously concerned the account details of a third party.
4. In view of this, we direct the CPIO to provide within 10 working days from the
receipt of this order specific information in respect of (i) the name of the owner of the
premises leased out by the Bank for locating the said branch, (ii) the amount of rent being
paid per month and (iii) the period for which the lease agreement has been signed.
5. We also direct the CPIO to explain why the maximum penalty as provided in
Section 20 of the RTI Act be not imposed on him for the inordinate and deliberate delay
in supplying the information. If his explanation does not reach us within 10 working
days from the receipt of this order, we will decide on the penalty ex-parte.
6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed off.
7. 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