Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00549-SM dated 06.8.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 06.02.2009
Appellant : Shri D. Sahadevan
Respondent : State Bank of India
The Appellant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri D. Kasi, Dy. Manager
(ii) Shri B. Raghavulu Naidu, Manager (Law)
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in his letter dated 6 August 2007, for certain
information. The CPIO, in his letter of 13 October 2007, denied the information as exempt under
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act being in the nature of information which had
no relation to any public activity or interest and which would cause unwarranted invasion of
theprivacy of individuals. Not satisfied, the Appellant approached the first Appellate Authority in
his appeal dated 25 October 2007. That Authority decided his appeal by his order dated in 11
December 2007. He endorsed the views of the CPIO and held that since the Appellant was
seeking to know about the details concerning another employee, this information could not be
given as exempt under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. It is against this order that he has now
approached the Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing,the Appellant was not present in spite of notice.We carefully examined
his appeal and also heard the submissions of the Respondent. The Respondent brought to our
notice that this appeal had already been decided by the Commission in the past in its order dated
6 Aug 2008 in File No. PBA/08/398. In its order,the Commission had directed the CPIO
concerned to provide part of the information sought by the Appellant but not to supply certain
information which concerned the personal details of a third party. On comparing the contents of
the present appeal with the one which had been already decided, we find that the subject matter
of both the appeals is the same. We also note that the Respondent has provided the Appellant
with the information as directed by the Commission. In the second appeal, the Appellant has
asked for some additional information which he had not raised in his original application.
Nevertheless, if this information is available with the CPIO, we direct him to provide that
information to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order
4. With the above direction, this appeal is 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