Correspondence & various letters between a private company & bank was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) stating that it is third party’s personal information held by bank in its fiduciary capacity and is of commercial confidence - CIC: appeal rejected
11 Sep, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, submitted RTI application dated 20 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding correspondence and various letters etc., through a total of 6 points.
2. Vide reply dated 19 December 2012, CPIO denied the information to the appellant stating that it was held by the public authority in fiduciary capacity 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; 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)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, the appellant filed appeal dated 8 January 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that denial of information by the respondent is a mere blanket statement not supported by any cogent reason on the basis of which it can be clearly demonstrated that such disclosure would attract the exemption contained in 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; 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)(e)of Right to Information Act, 2005. Vide order dated 4 February 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision that information desired by the appellant is of commercial confidence and third party’s personal information available with bank in its fiduciary capacity. Therefore, 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; 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)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005, are applicable in this case and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The respondents submitted that the information sought by the appellant is with respect to Naazo International Inc. and cannot be provided 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; 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)(e) of Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent further submitted that two companies, the Noble Brothers Impex Ltd., and Naazo International Inc. tried to defraud the bank against which the bank filed a case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of New York and the same was decided in the favor of the bank. Further, the execution petition filed by the bank is still pending in Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. The matter is, therefore, sub judice.
Decision Notice
5. In view of the above, the Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO/FAA. The appeal is disposed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Smt. Charanjeet Kaur v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001879/MP