Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000314 dated 27-05-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 4 December 2009
Name of the Appellant : Shri Krishnanand Verma
S/o Late Shri Bhola Nath,
Krishna Nagar, Jai Gurudev Gali,
Janpad Ballia.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Punjab National Bank,
Ballia Branch, Station Road,
Ballia.
The Appellant was present along with Shri Madhusudan Srivastava.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Puneet Singh Law Officer was
present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the Branch in his application dated May
27, 2008 for several details about the transactions in the Account No. CC
198. Nearly 2 months later, the Branch to which the application had been
addressed wrote to the Appellant asking him to forward a photocopy of the
cheque mentioned in his application so that his application could be
forwarded to the CPIO concerned. It seems the Appellant provided a copy of
the cheque on July 23 and, thereafter, the CPIO replied on August 12, 2008
stating that since the information was personal in nature and was held in
confidence could not be disclosed. In the meanwhile, the Appellant had
already sent his appeal to the Appellate Authority on July 1, 2008. It is not
clear if that authority had ever disposed of the appeal. Now the matter has
come before us in second appeal.
3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. Both the parties were
present in the Balia studio of the NIC. We heard their submissions. It is a
fact that the Appellant has sought to know about the details of the account
of a third-party customer of the Bank. The Appellant argued that he needed
the information as he felt that the account holder was engaged in corrupt
CIC/SM/A/2009/000314
practices. Section 8(1) (d) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act exempts
disclosure of commercial confidence unless such disclosure would serve a
larger public interest. Mere apprehension on the part of the Appellant that
the account holder was engaged in some corrupt practices cannot be ground
enough for disclosing his account details which the Bank holds in commercial
confidence. Therefore, the information sought cannot be provided.
4. However, it is noted that the Branch sat over the application for
nearly a month before it wrote to the Appellant seeking a copy of the
cheque. Consequently, the final reply of the CPIO got delayed considerably.
This is clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act. Before we decide on imposing any penalty on the CPIO or the
officer in the Branch responsible for the delay, we would like to have the
written explanation of the CPIO/officer concerned about the circumstances
resulting in the delay. Unless the CPIO/the officer concerned had some
reasonable cause for acting so late on the application, we will decide on
imposing penalty as per the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act. We
direct the CPIO to send his explanation and the explanation of the officer
concerned in the Branch within 15 working days from the receipt of this
order. If we do not receive the explanation in time, we will decide on the
penalty ex parte. However, if the CPIO/the officer concerned want to be
heard in person, they should say so in the written explanation.
5. With the above direction, the appeal 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
CIC/SM/A/2009/000314