Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00689-SM dated 29.10.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 25.02.2009
Appellant : Shri Sunil Aggarwal
Respondent : State Bank of Travancore
The Appellant is represented by Shri Krishna Kumar.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following are present:-
(i) Shri K. Swamyraj
(ii) Shri Riza Mohamed K.S.
The Brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in four different letters, the last one dated
29 October 2007, for information in respect of a particular Company which had an
account in the Bank. The CPIO, in his reply dated 29 October 2007, denied the
information on the ground that the Appellant was not connected to the Company and
hence the details of the account could not be disclosed to him under Section 8 of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act. Against this denial, the Appellant filed an appeal before
the first Appellate Authority on 16 February 2008. The first Appellate Authority in his
order dated in March 2008, rejected the appeal and endorsed the decision of the CPIO in
denying the information. It is against that order that the Appellant has now come before
us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, we heard the submissions of both the sides. The Appellant
argued that the CPIO was wrong in denying him the information as he continued to have
an interest in and a business association with the Company about which he was seeking
the information. He also argued that he continued to be a director of the Company. On the
other hand, the Respondent submitted that as per information available with them, the
Appellant was no longer a director of the Company and, hence, had no relationship to this
account. The Respondent submitted that disclosing information about the account of the
Company to the Appellant would amount to revealing the account details of a third-party.
In support of their contention, they furnished an order passed by the CIC in another
matter involving the present Appellant in which the Commission had held that the
information about the account of the Company should be disclosed only if the Appellant
would produce proof of his being a director of the said Company to the satisfaction of the
Bank. This case is no different from that case. Here, the issue is whether the Appellant
who claims to be a director or to have been a director of the said Company in the past has
a right to access information about the account details of the Company. In line with what
the Commission had held earlier, we also direct the CPIO to provide the information
sought within 10 working days from the receipt of this order only if the Appellant would
produce proof of his being a director of the said Company in accordance with law to the
satisfaction of the Public Authority.
4. With the above directions, the appeal is 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