Central Information Commission
Complaint No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00584-SM dated 08.02.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (18)
Dated: 5 June 2009
Complainant : Shri H.C. Agrawal
Respondent : Allahabad Bank
The Complainant was present along with Shri Anurag Aggarwal.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri N.K. Sharma, AGM, was present.
This complaint has come to us on transfer from the SIC, Lucknow
where it had been originally filed. The facts of the case, in brief, are as
under.
2. The Complainant has requested the Branch Manager on 8 February
2008 for a number of information about a particular account of one college.
The Branch Manager wrote to him on 7 March 2008 and informed him that he
was not authorised to provide any information. It is against this that the
Complainant had gone before the SIC, Lucknow.
3. During the hearing, both the sides were present and made their
submissions. The Complainant argued that since the information sought was
regarding the account of the college of which he was a member of the
Executive, he had a right to know about the details of the said account. On
the other hand, the Respondent was of the view that the account details of
the college could not be disclosed to the Complainant as he was not the
authorised person. We tend to agree with the argument of the Respondent. It
has been consistently held by the CIC in several decisions that the details of
accounts maintained by customers in a Bank cannot be disclosed to third
parties as this would amount to compromising the commercial confidence
reposed by those customers in the Bank and such disclosure can adversely
affect the competitive position of the said customers. In this case also, the
Complainant has wanted to know certain details about the account
maintained by the college in this particular Branch. Disclosure of the details
to him may adversely affect the competitive position of the college. Besides,
he has not produced any authority from the college for seeking such
information. Neither had he produced any evidence or argument that the
disclosure of such information would serve any larger public interest. In view
of this, this information cannot be disclosed to him as exempt under Section
8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. In this case, we note that the Branch Manager did not transfer the
application for information to the appropriate CPIO and disposed it off at his
own level. Neither did he advise the Complainant to approach the right CPIO.
Besides, he did not provide a cogent and reasoned reply. We strongly warn
him to be more careful in future and not deal with requests for information
casually. Whenever any application for information is received at the Branch
level, the Branch Manager should forthwith transfer such application to the
appropriate CPIO without any loss of time.
5. With the above observations, the 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