Central Information Commission Judgements

Smt.Neelam Keshri vs Bank Of India on 31 October, 2011

Central Information Commission
Smt.Neelam Keshri vs Bank Of India on 31 October, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                          Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002010/15393
                                                                  Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002010

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Smt. Neelam Kesheri
                                            Makhniyan Kuan, Near Masijid,
                                            Post - Bankipur, Thana - Peerbahore,
                                            District - Patna (Bihar).


Respondent                           :      Public Information Officer,
                                            Bank of India
                                            Zonal Office
                                            Patna Zone, Chanakya Tower,
                                            R-Block, Patna - 800001, Bihar.

RTI application filed on             :      07-01-2011
PIO replied on                       :      20-04-2011
First Appeal filed on                :      10-03-2011
First Appellate Authority order of   :      Not replied
Second Appeal received on            :      21-06-2011

Information sought:
 S. No.             Information sought.                                The PIO reply.
   1.    Provide attested copy of all letters         Information can not be provided under section 8(1)
         presented by the borrower in respect of      (d) & 8(1) (j).
         loan A/c No. 440730110000029.
   2.    Provide the verification report made by      As above.
         the bank and policy decision of loan in
         respect      of    lone     A/c     No.
         440730110000029 regarding above.
   3.    Provide the photocopy of advance file        As above.
         documents in respect of loan A/c No.
         440730110000029 opened by the bank
         administrative.
   4.    Provide the name and address of the          As above.
         officials who issued the loan with loan
         A/c No. 440730110000029.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply was provided to the appellant.

Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order was passed by the FAA.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
The appellant is not satisfied with the PIO reply and no order was passed by FAA.
 Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Smt. Neelam Kesheri Absent at NIC Studio in Patna
Respondent: Absent at NIC Studio in Patna

Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing but had not come at NIC studio in Patna. On
perusal of the papers it appears that the Appellant had sought information about the customer of the
bank M/s Tara Traders. The Appellant claims that the information is relating to a relative. The bank
holds the information about the customer in a fiduciary capacity.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure ‘information available to a person in his
fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information;’

The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter’s benefit within the scope of that
relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those
that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another
important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of
information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer
chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for
the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the
information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships
usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided
in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to
have been given in a fiduciary relationship.

In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it
because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit.
Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public
interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.

Decision:

The Appeal is disposed.

The information sought by the Appellant is exempt under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI
act.

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
31 October 2011

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))