Bank account number and the total deposit in the account of the deceased father denied u/s 8(1)(e), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) - on the expiry of the depositor, the money was paid to the nominees and the appellant was not a nominee - CIC: denial upheld
3 Oct, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 12-2-2012 requesting for her father’s account number and the total deposit in that account and related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 21-2-2012, denying the information to the appellant under section 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; , sections 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; 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; & 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. 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. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 20-3-2012. The FAA responded on 24-2-2012 and concurred with the views of the CPIO. The appellant approached the Commission on 28-6-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard the respondent through videoconferencing.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant is a daughter of the depositor. On the expiry of the depositor, the money was paid as per the rules of the bank to the nominees of the depositor. The appellant was not one of the nominees of the depositor. Hence, she did not receive any payment.
5. The respondent explained that the CPIO had communicated on 21-2-2012 to the appellant that this matter pertained to third party information, hence information was denied under section 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; and 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; 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; and 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. 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. The respondent stated that the FAA had also on 24-2-2012 informed the appellant that the amount in the possession of the depositor has already been paid to those persons who had been nominated by the depositor.
6. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
7. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. The decision of the FAA is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms Veena Kumari v. Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000727/04727