Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00810-SM dated 16.04.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 04.03.2009
Appellant : Shri Harful Singh
Respondent : Oriental Bank of Commerce
The Appellant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in a letter dated 16 April 2008 for certain
details regarding two accounts belonging to two different parties maintained in the Bank.
The CPIO, in his reply dated 5 May 2008, denied the information by referring to section
8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Not satisfied with this reply, the Appellant
approached the first Appellate Authority in an appeal which that Authority decided in his
order dated 9 May 2008. The first Appellate Authority endorsed the decision of the CPIO
in denying the information as the disclosure of the information sought could affect the
commercial confidence reposed by the account holders in the Bank. It is against this
order of the first Appellate Authority that he has approached us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant was not present in spite of notice. The
Respondent has furnished written comments on the appeal filed by the Appellant. After
carefully examining the written comments of the Respondent, his oral submissions during
the hearing and the contents of the appeal filed by the Appellant, we are of the view that
the CPIO was right in declining the information as it concerned the account details of two
different account holders. Disclosure of such details about the accounts maintained in the
Bank can compromise not only the commercial confidence reposed by the account
holders in the Bank but such disclosure can also adversely affect the commercial
competitiveness of the account holders. Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act specifically exempts such information from disclosure. However, we find that the
CPIO did not pass a speaking order and merely referred to the relevant Section of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act in support of his denial. We advise him to be more
careful in future and while declining any information under any of the sections of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act, to pass a speaking and reasoned order.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed off.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(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