Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Anil Kumar Garg vs State Bank Of India on 26 August, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Anil Kumar Garg vs State Bank Of India on 26 August, 2009
                          Central Information Commission
               Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/1087-SM dated 13.03.2008
                Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                         Dated: 26 August 2009


Name of the Appellant              :   Shri Anil Kumar Garg,
                                       DCWE B/R, CWE - Allahabad,
                                       Near Cantt.,
                                       Allahabad - 211 011.


Name of the Public Authority       :   CPIO, State Bank of India,
                                       Local Head Office,
                                       GM (NW-2), Sectt.,
                                       11, Sansad Marg,
                                       New Delhi - 110 001.


       The Appellant was not present.

       On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
       (i)       Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law)
       (ii)      Shri P.K. Modi, Chief Manager
       (iii)     Shri Shoorvir Singh, D.M (Law)

       The brief facts of the case are as under.

2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his application dated March

13, 2008 four some information regarding the pension drawn by one Smt

Sushila Devi Garg. The CPIO replied on April 28, 2008 and denied the

information citing the exemption provisions contained in Section 8(1) (d),

(e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this

reply, he sent an appeal to the Appellate Authority on May 8, 2008. The

Appellate Authority decided his appeal in his order dated July 15, 2008 and

dismissed it by endorsing the decision of the CPIO in denying the

information which concerned the account details of a third party customer

CIC/PB/A/2008/1087-SM
of the Bank. The Appellant has now moved the CIC in second appeal against

the denial of information.

3. The Appellant was not present during the hearing. The Respondent

was present and submitted that the information sought clearly concerned

the pension account details of one of their customers. The Appellant had

not indicated if he had any authorisation from the said account holder about

whom he was seeking this information. In the absence of any such

authorisation, the CPIO was right in denying the information as the Bank

held such information in commercial confidence and the disclosure of such

information did not ostensibly serve any public interest. The exemption

provision under which this information had been denied seems appropriate.

4. The appeal is, above, disposed off.

5. 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/A/2008/1087-SM