Information about 17 accounts regarding loans raised for milch cattle which were allegedly waived against the rules - Respondent: allegation baseless and made due to family dispute - CIC: denial u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) upheld
28 Aug, 2013RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 24.3.2012 seeking information about the loan taken by the 17 members of a joint family on various grounds. In all, information has been sought on 8 points. The CPIO denied the information on 19.6.2012 under section 2(f), 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 section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act 2005.
2. However, before receipt of the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 10.5.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA directed the CPIO on 27.6.2012 to furnish specific information/ reply to the appellant within 7 days. The appellant approached the Commission on 3.8.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 24.3.2012 and stated that he was seeking information about 17 accounts in which loans have been raised for milch cattle, but the account holders have, with the conspiracy with the bank staff, got their loans waived against the rules. It was in this context, the appellant said that he was seeking information, but the bank is denying him information.
5. The respondent stated that the information sought clearly comes under the exemption from disclosure clauses as personal and third party information and hence it was 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; and section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the allegation that the branch is involved is baseless. The respondent stated that the appellant is making allegations against his own family members and that there is family dispute which has motivated this RTI application and that the bank has nothing to do with the allegations that are being made.
6. The approach taken by the respondent in the matter is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision
7. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Radhey Sham v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001103/04146