CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG/15147
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001664/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. P. Shiva Kumar
A/225 1st Phase
Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally
Hyderabad- 500072
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Asst. General Manager
Syndicate Bank, Yamjal Branch
6-3-653 Pioneer House
Regional Office- City Somajiguda
Hyderabad - 500082
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2010
PIO Replied on : 11/05/2010
First Appeal filed on : 31/07/2010
Order of the FAA : 31/08/2010
Second Appeal received on : 29/10/2010
S.n Information sought Reply of PIO
o
1. Copies of Third Party The content of the application is perused and the
Requisition Letter alongwith information cannot be furnished. You have already
H.O. Syndicate Bank order filed a Consumer Case No. 189/2008 against the
copy not to furnish the copy of Bank before CDRF Ranga Reddy Dist seeking
Requisition Letter to Account compensation of Rs 8.25 lakh with interest in respect
Holder. of the same issue which you have raised in the RTI
Act. The bank as an opposite party has been
contesting the same by filing a reply. Meanwhile you
have also approached the Banking Ombudsman with
a complaint against the Bank and your present RTI
refers to an alleged representation made by our
Yajaml Branch Manager made before the Banking
Ombudsman. You have sought for (1) Copies of
third party requisition letter (your erstwhile
employer- Airforce Management) and (2) Order
Copy of HO Syndicate bank about not furnishing the
copy of your requisition letter to your erstwhile
employer - Airforce management to you. The issue
relating to the bank revealing Information about your
accounts to your employer is now pending
consideration before CDRF. The Bank has taken a
stand in the said case. Therefore the same issue
cannot be dealt with under the RTI Act as it would
impede the investigation before CDRF. Hence
exemption under Section 8(1)(h) attracted.
Grounds for the First Appeal
1. The Order rejecting the grant of request letter of it reply by Syndicate Bank Yamjal
Branch is erroneous against weight of evidence.
2. Merely because the matter is pending under court does not prohibit from furnishing of
information under RTI Act.
3. The Authority failed to furnish information merely on the grounds that Head Office
ordered a letter not to furnish the document is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA upheld the reply of the CPIO and dismissed the appeal.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant was not satisfied with the non-disclosure of information and subsequent order
of the FAA.
Relevant Facts
emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. P. Shiva Kumar on video conference from NIC-Hyderabad Studio;
Respondent: Absent;
The Appellant has filed this RTI application since he claims that his bank’s statement
has been given to his employer without his concurrence.
The Appellant has sought copy of the third party’s letter asking the bank to supply his
bank statement and also a copy of the letter issued by the head office of Syndicate bank to the
branch directing them not to furnish the said letter to him. The PIO has refused to provide the
information to the Appellant claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. His
contention is that since the Appellant has filed the case in the Consumer Forum he is not
giving the information. Section 8(1)(h) exempts, “information which would impeded the
process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender”. In the instant case there
is evidently no investigation and nor is there any prosecution and hence the PIO has
frivolously used Section 8(1)(h) without any ground. The PIO’s claim for exemption under
Section 8(1)(h) is without any basis or justification.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information giving the copy of the
letter based on which the Appellant’s bank statements were provided and a copy
of the letter issued by the Head Office of the Syndicate Bank instructing the
Bank not to provide the letter to the Appellant. If any of these do not exist this
would be stated. The PIO is directed to provide the information before 05
November 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
12 October 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)