Copy of the original order signed by the Reviewing Authority to dispose of the review petition of appellant against dismissal was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & Section 8(1)(e) - CIC: disclosure can’t harm the competitive position of the Bank or of a third party
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 1.5.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking a copy of the original order signed by the Reviewing Authority to dispose of his review petition. The CPIO responded on 20.5.2013 and denied the information 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; and 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; of the RTI Act, on the ground that it was internal and confidential information. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 27.5.2013. In his order dated 15.6.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 26.8.2013.
2. The Appellant submitted that he is entitled to receive the information sought by him and wants to be sure that his review petition was disposed of by the competent reviewing authority. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant was an employee of the Bank and was dismissed from service in 2001. He had filed a review petition, which was disposed of. They reiterated denial of information in this case on the grounds cited in the letter dated 20.5.2013 of the CPIO. In the above context, we do not agree with the action of the Respondents to invoke Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act to deny information in this case. We do not see as to how disclosure of this information can harm the competitive position of the Bank or of a third party. Further, Section 8 (1) (e) is not relevant in this case because the Appellant is asking for information regarding disposal of his own Review Petition and not that of a third party. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant to him, within fifteen days of the receipt of this Order, under intimation to the Commission.
3. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri B Bhushana Rao v. Syndicate Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001395/SH