Central Information Commission
File No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000758 dated 18-11-2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated: 15 March 2010
Name of the Appellant : Shri Nadie Jauhri
Amber, D K Nagar,
Gangapur Road,
Nashik - 422 013.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Union Bank of India,
Field General Manager's Office,
66/80, Mumbai Samachar Marg,
Fort Mumbai - 400 023.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:-
(i) Shri D.S. Tripathy, General Manager
(ii) Shri G.K. Pande, Sr. Manager
(iii) Shri R.K. Gupta, Chief Manager
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had, in his application dated 18 November 2008,
requested the CPIO for a number of information regarding the account of
one MSCDA Limited, an account holder of the Bank including also about the
Bank guarantee, if any, issued by the Bank on their behalf. The CPIO, in his
reply dated 4 December 2008, refused to disclose the information claiming
that this was third party information. He also mentioned that the Bank had
issued no bank guarantee amounting to Rs.6 crores on behalf of the MSCDA
Limited as stated by the Appellant. Not satisfied with this information, the
Appellant preferred an appeal on 27 December 2008 which the Appellate
Authority rejected by endorsing the stand of the CPIO. Consequently, the
Appellant has come to the Central Information Commission in second
appeal.
3. Both the parties were present during the hearing at Mumbai. We
heard their submissions. The Appellant submitted that this particular
account holder, though registered as a company, was in reality an
CIC/SM/A/2009/000758
association of some individuals and has defrauded its members in collusion
with the Bank. He further submitted that the information was being sought
to unravel the irregular activities of the said association. On the other
hand, the Respondent argued that the information sought squarely
pertained to a third party account which the Bank held in commercial
confidence. He submitted that the disclosure of the information regarding
the account number or other details regarding the Bank guarantee, if any,
issued on behalf of the account holder would amount to compromising the
competitive position of that party. Such information, he argued, was
exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information
(RTI) Act.
4. We carefully examined the request for information. Keeping in
view the submissions and arguments made during the hearing, we are of the
view that the CPIO was, by and large, right in not disclosing the details
about the account of the third party customer, the kind of information
which the Section 8(1)(d) particularly exempts. On the face of it, the
disclosure of such information does not seem to be serving any larger public
interest either. However, it would suffice if the CPIO would, in a sworn
affidavit, inform the Appellant that all the transactions between the Bank
and this account holder including the issue of Bank guarantee, if any, were
in total conformity with the laid down rules and regulations and that no
deviation or undue relaxation was shown to the account holder in the
matter of issue of the Bank guarantee. We direct the CPIO to send such a
sworn affidavit within 10 working days from the receipt of this order.
5. The case is, thus, 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/2009/000758