Appellant: Private security agencies are required to obtain licence from police authorities - SBI: “caretaker” are engaged for providing security at ATM booths & not “security guards” - CIC: Provide the terms and conditions of empanelment of caretaker
1. The appellant, Shri J S Kadyan submitted RTI application dated 11.06.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, New Delhi seeking following information in connection with the deployment of security guards at various SBI, ATM booth:
“1 A photo copy of license to engage in the business by private security agency issued by Haryana Police (under the Private Security Agencies Regulation Act,-2005) and Private Security Agencies Rules- 2009)
2 A photo copy of Agreement /(Tender) between contractor and client, reg. deployment of security guards.”
2. The CPIO vide letter No. S.L. No. DZO-III/RBO/R-II/1213 dated 14.07.2015 denied the information sought in point No. 1 of RTI application on the ground that it related to third party and is exempted under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. As for point No. 2, the CPIO declined the disclosure of information citing exemption under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; & 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved by this reply of CPIO, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 23.07.2015 before First Appellate Authority (FAA) which the FAA decided vide order dated 28.08.2015 upholding the CPIO’s reply.
3. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Commission on 16.10.2015 challenging the decision of the respondents.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that as per the Private Security Agencies Regulation Act, 2005 and Private Security Agencies Rules, 2009, private security agencies are required to obtain licence from police authorities for the purpose of providing security guards. According to him, the appellant was apprehensive of the fact that the private security agencies, which are engaged for providing security guards at SBI, ATM booths at Gurgaon, do not have the licence. Therefore, the appellant wanted to know whether the said private security agencies have the licence for providing security guards or not.
5. The respondents stated that they engage “caretaker” and not “security guards” for providing security at ATM booths. According to them, caretaker does not require licence for providing security at ATM booths as per the agreement between the caretaker and the bank. However, there are certain eligibility conditions for empanelment of caretaker with the bank, such as, he should be sufficiently educated, well behaved, capable to protect the ATM etc. The appellant’s representative then requested that the appellant be provided with a copy of document containing the terms & conditions of empanelment of caretaker. This, according to him, would serve the purpose of the present appeal. The respondents agreed to provide this information to appellant, though the appellant had not asked for the same in his RTI application.
6. As the respondents are willing to provide the information the appellant’s representative has identified hereinabove, Commission directs the CPIO to do so within 2 weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri J S Kadyan v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001897