Information about hiring of advocates on behalf of officers of the Bank and the payments made to them – almost Rs.20 lakhs paid to the advocates - highly unusual to spend such amounts and hence it is a matter of public interest - inspection ordered
9 Aug, 2013RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 20.1.2012 asking for information about hiring of advocates for appearing in various courts on behalf of officers of the Bank and the payments made to these advocates. The PIO informed the appellant on 15.2.2012 stating that the Bank has not hired any of the advocates and that the bank’s role was to the extent of giving financial support to the officers. The CPIO denied the information about payments made to advocates under 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; 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; and (j) of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 16.4.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA dismissed the appeal on 26.4.2012 on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant approached the Commission on 18.6.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 20.1.2012 and stated that the respondent bank is deliberately avoiding providing of information that he was seeking on the various points made in the RTI application.
4. The respondent stated that the RTI application has been responded to on 15.2.2012 by the CPIO and on 26.4.2012 by the FAA. The respondent said that the CPIO had denied the information under 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; 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. The respondent stated that subsequently in another related matter, i.e., Appeal No.CIC/SG/A/2012/001270, the Information Commission had passed an order on15.6.2012 with directions to the respondent in the context of a related RTI application. The order of the Commission has been complied with and in this light, the present RTI application should also be taken to have complied with.
5. The appellant stated that this RTI application has a very clear focus which cannot be compared with the earlier RTI application because in the current RTI application, the context is certain payments that have been made to the advocates by the bank to defend certain bank officials in legal proceedings where the bank is not even a party.
6. The respondent stated that this is personal information and this, according to the RTI Act, is exempt from disclosure.
7. The appellant said that how can this be treated as personal information where a huge amount, almost Rs.20 lakhs, has been paid to the advocates. The appellant said that it is highly unusual for a public sector undertaking to spend such amounts and hence it is a matter of public interest and that is why he is seeking information.
8. The appellant should get information about
(i) the bills / invoices raised by the concerned advocates;
(ii) details about the court cases; and
(iii) notings of the bank files where a decision was taken to make the payment to advocates to defend the bank personnel in matters where the bank was not a party.
Decision
9. The respondent is directed to facilitate inspection by the appellant of the files relevant to para 8 and make available photocopies of the pertinent papers. Compliance must be done within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Ashok Kumar M. Pandya v. Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000556/03396