CIC: Copies of TA bills etc. is in the nature of personal information & not relatable to the discharge of the duties in official capacity; provide information on the date of travel & amount reimbursed; furnish the total LTC amount disbursed
11 Mar, 2015ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri H N Wadhwa, submitted RTI application dated 9 July 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Patiala, Patiala seeking information regarding TA/DA & LTC bills claimed by Shri Achal Kumar Gupta, Managing Director of the respondent bank from January 2012 to till date, through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply dated 10 September 2013, CPIO provided information on Point No. 1 and 4 and denied information on Point No. 2, 3 and 5 under the provisions of 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; 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 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 16 October 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). No order had been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant’s representative stated that information on Point No. 2, 3 and 5 was wrongly denied to the appellant. The respondents stated that several RTI applications from the same address had been received with different names, hence in order to ensure that only the person residing at that address had filed the RTI application, a letter dated 1.8.2013 was sent to the appellant for seeking the proof of identity. He added, view for seeking identity proof was supported by a judgement dated 2.11.2012 of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 4787 of 2011 titled “Fruit Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and ors”, in para 23 whereof the High Court has clearly held that “Further, in all complaints before the PIO, the appeal before the First Appellate Authority or any proceedings before the Commission, it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application. It is for the reason that in some cases it has come to the notice of this Court that the applicants were not identifiable. It would ensure that only the genuine persons file applications.” After the receipt of CPIO’s letter dated 10.9.2013 the appellant had not availed the opportunity of filing the first appeal and approached the CIC in second appeal. It had only come to notice from the papers attached with the 2nd appeal that the appellant had filed 1st appeal, which was never received in the office of the FAA. The information related to non receipt of his first appeal was also conveyed to the appellant by the FAA vide letter dated 29.11.2013. They stated that the information sought relating to TA, DA and LTC bills of the Managing Director of the Bank was exempt from disclosure u/s 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 (j) of the RTI Act in pursuance with the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and ors (Civil Writ Petition No,. 4930 of 2011) held in para 9 and 10 that:”(9). A perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner would reveal that the provision of the act has been invoked seeking information in the nature of the account number/name of the bank in which the salary of the officers is being sent, copies of TA Bills, copies of GPF/PPF statement of the officers with effect from the date of their joining till March 2009, copies of LTC bills and supply of PAN numbers of the officers along with full details of income tax deposited yearwise. ..(10) The information sought would clearly be in the nature of personal information in respect of the private respondents and not relatable to the discharge of their duties in official capacity.”
5. As per the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana the copies of TA bills etc. would clearly be in the nature of personal information and not relatable to the discharge of their duties in official capacity.
6. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to provide information on the date of travel and amount reimbursed only in the case of Shri Achal Kumar Gupta, MD of State Bank of Patiala for the period January 2012 onwards and the total LTC amount disbursed during the period. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri H N Wadhwa v. State Bank of Patiala in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000124