Details of pension A/c No. 10498108593 belonging to appellant’s husband was denied it u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - Appellant: information is required to challenge the lower court’s decision regarding the maintenance case in the High Court - CIC: denial upheld
1. The appellant, Smt. Ahilya Devi, has submitted RTI application dated 7 September 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Patna; seeking information regarding details of pension A/c No. 10498108593 belonging to her husband, Shri Shivdhani Prasad Mehta, through a total of 2 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 15 October 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when he did not receive any information by the CPIO concerned within stipulated time period. Vide order dated 14 December 2012, FAA held that CPIO had already furnished the information vide letter dated 20 September 2012 and also furnished the same to the appellant. In that reply, CPIO had denied the information u/s 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; & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The appellant sought pension details of Shri Shivdhani Prasad Mehta, appellant’s husband. The appellant stated that the information sought is required to challenge the lower court’s decision regarding the maintenance case in the High Court. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case i.e., CANNON STEELS PVT. LTD., vs. CESTAT [2014(300) E.L.T.193 (Del.)] has observed that “Cases pending in Court – Litigant in own pending litigation can seek inspection of case record as of right, and there is no need to seek information through RTI.”
5. The respondents denied the disclosure of information on the grounds that the information is held in fiduciary capacity with the bank and hence attracts section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest in the disclosure of information.
6. The Commission accepts the CPIO’s submission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Smt. Ahilya Devi v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000780/MP