Central Information Commission Judgements

Shri Parsa vs Canara Bank on 20 November, 2009

Central Information Commission
Shri Parsa vs Canara Bank on 20 November, 2009
                         Central Information Commission
              Appeal No.CIC/SM/A/2009/000103 dated 17-05-2008
               Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)



                                                  Dated: 20 November 2009


Name of the Appellant             :   Shri Parsa
                                      R/o 208, Shishgran,
                                      Firozabad - 283 203.

Name of the Public Authority      :   CPIO, Canara Bank,
                                      Strategic Planning & Development
                                      Wing, Head Office,
                                      112, JC Road,
                                      Bangalore - 560 002.



        The Appellant was present in person.

        On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Ravindran was present.

2. In this case, the Appellant had, in his application dated May 17, 2008,

requested the CPIO for a copy of the Bank’s Manual/Guideline on death

claim settlement. The CPIO replied on May 27, 2008 declining the

information citing the exemption provisions contained in Section 8(1) (d) of

the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this, the Appellant went before

the Appellate Authority on June 9, 2008. That authority disposed of the

appeal in his order dated June 24, 2008 in which he upheld the stand of the

CPIO. Consequently, the Appellant has come before the CIC in second

appeal.

3. We heard this case through videoconferencing. The Appellant was

present in the Ferozabad studio of the NIC whereas the Respondent was

present in the Bangalore studio. The Respondent argued that the Bank’s

CIC/SM/A/2009/000103
Manual on death claim settlement was a confidential document containing

instructions to the branch managers on how to deal with death claims. He

argued that, if disclosed, it would go into the hands of their competition

and may undermine their competitive position. We found this argument very

unconvincing. After all, if this Manual is only for the use of the branch

managers for processing death claims, there is all the more reason that it

should be in the public domain so that everybody knows how death claims

are settled. We see no reason to exempt this document from disclosure

under the provisions cited by the CPIO. Therefore, we now direct the CPIO

to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from receipt of this

order, a copy of the Manual on death claim settlement.

4. The case is, thus, disposed off.

5. 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/2009/000103