Information pertaining to the identity of the account holders in respect of certain cheques was denied u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) - Appellant: misappropriation of funds alleged - CIC: information is held by bank in a fiduciary capacity; appeal rejected
7 Jan, 2014ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 17.08.2012 seeking information pertaining to the identity of the account holders in respect of certain cheques.
2. The PIO responded on 25.10.2012 and denied information to the appellant 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 section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 31.10.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 14.11.2012 and upheld the decision of CPIO. The appellant filed a second appeal on 12.12.2012 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 17.08.2012 and stated that he has mentioned 29 cheques in his RTI application and that in connection with the 29 cheques he wanted to know the names of the account holders and persons who have withdrawn the money.
4. The appellant stated that the account about which he is seeking information is that of the Village Panchayat and that he is seeking information in the public interest as there has been a misappropriation and an inquiry had been conducted by the Panchayat Department officers who have also reached the conclusion that there has been misappropriation. It is in this context that the appellant stated that he is seeking the information.
5. The respondent stated that they had already responded to the appellant and stated that this information is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and that they are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the information and further that they had also cited 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 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. of the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that they are not aware of any misappropriation as alleged and neither are they aware of any enquiry.
6. The respondent stated that they are following what is written in the RTI Act. The respondent stated that they had written everything in their detailed order of 12.11.2012.
7. The respondent order of 12.11.2012 is in conformity with the RTI Act and there is no reason for the Commission to intervene in the order of the first appellate authority.
Decision:
8. The order of the first appellate authority is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri K.K. Silambarasan v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000147/05487