Appellant sought information pertaining to the account balance, account statement, fixed deposits, loans and locker particulars of his wife – CIC: Information cannot be given to the appellant u/s 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act being personal
1. The appellant submitted RTI application dated May 12, 2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Guntur seeking information whether or not Smt. Chindu Padma D/o Late Shri Chindu Venkateshwarlu had taken gold loan in the month of March 2012 & June 2012 at Chenchupeta Branch, Tenali etc.
2. The appellant preferred an appeal dated June 5 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA) before the completion of thirty days. Vide order dated June 9, 2014, the FAA returned the appeal stating that the RTI Act, 2005 permits the CPIO to either accept or reject the application within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application and that the CPIO had still time up to 14.6.2014 to respond in the matter. The CPIO vide his letter dated June 13, 2014 denied the information sought by the appellant u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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; of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had sought information under RTI regarding whether his wife had taken any gold loan on 9.4.2012 & 26.6.2012. He stated that she was his legally wedded wife and therefore information should be given to him. The respondents stated that the appellant had sought information pertaining to the account balance, account statement, fixed deposits, loans and locker particulars of Smt. Padma Chindu which was her personal information. Any disclosure of this had no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. They stated that the bank had to maintain the secrecy of affairs of its constituents and such information was exempt from disclosure.
5. The Commission holds that information cannot be given to the appellant u/s 8(1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of. This also disposes of the case no. CIC/MP/A/2014/902349 seeking identical information.
Citation: Shri Subba Rao Badarla v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001864 CIC/MP/A/2014/902349