CIC: Copy of order of the SBI to publish the advertisement in ‘Bureau Times-An International Magazine’ & the amount paid for advertisement cannot be construed as information that relates to commercial confidence & personal information of a third party
8 Mar, 2018O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Formerly Bhartiya Mahila Bank, Regional Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi, seeking information on five points pertaining to the advertisement published in the March 2016 edition of ‘Bureau Times-An International Magazine’, including, inter-alia,
(i) a copy of the approval note of the Bank to publish the advertisement,
(ii) a copy of the publication order and
(iii) details of total amount paid by the bank to the said magazine.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongfully denied the information sought on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application 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; 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. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish information sought for.
Hearing:
3. Both the appellant and the respondent were not present despite notice.
Decision:
4. The Commission, after perusing the records, observes that the appellant in his second appeal to the Commission stated that the CPIO has not provided information on point 4 and 5 of the RTI application. In response to point no. 4 of the RTI application i.e. copy of approved note/publication order of the Bank to publish the advertisement in ‘Bureau Times-An International Magazine’ for financial years 2013-14 to 2016-17, the respondent informed the appellant that the bank’s advertisement was released in October 2015 issue of the magazine. However, no approval note/publication order had been provided to the appellant. Further, with respect to point no. 5 of the RTI application i.e. the financial year wise amount paid to the magazine for advertisement was denied by the respondent 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; 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 without giving any justification for applicability of the exemptions. The Commission observes that the information sought on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application cannot be construed as information that relates to commercial confidence and personal information of a third party. Hence, the information sought has been wrongly denied 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; 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. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide the information sought on point nos. 4 and 5 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vijay Kumar Choudhary v. State Bank of India, Formerly Bhartiya Mahila Bank, Regional Office, Decision No. CIC/BMBLD/A/2017/316268, dated 15.02.2018