Information pertaining to loan taken by a person was denied u/s 8(1)(d)(e) &(j) - Appellant: PIO should take action u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act & give notice to the third party for disclosure of ‘personal information’ of third party - CIC: take action u/s 11
28 Apr, 2014ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Mahendra Kumar, has submitted the RTI application dated 03 August 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Alwar; seeking information pertaining to the loan taken by Shri Kaluram from Punjab National Bank, Alwar from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2008 for pumpset, tractor etc; through a total of 7 points.
2. Vide letter dated 11 September 2012, the CPIO claimed exemption under section 8(1)(d), section 8(1) (e) & 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 on all the points. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 18 September 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 20 October 2012, the FAA provided information in point 1 and upheld the CPIO’s order with reference to the rest.
3. Not quite satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the FAA has wrongfully and with malafide intention claimed exemption under Section 8 of the Act.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Mahendra Kumar, appeared at the hearing late. He stated that he did not get change in time for the hearing in time. The respondent, Shri K.K. Verma, Chief Manager/CPIO was present at Alwar.
5. The CPIO submitted that information sought by the appellant i.e. details of the loan granted to Shri Kaluram under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme may not be provided as the same stands as ‘personal information’ of third party and thus attracts 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.
6. The appellant submitted that the third party i.e. Shri Kaluram has expired and the CPIO should take action under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act giving notice to the third party i.e. Shri Kaluram’s legal heirs regarding the disclosure of ‘personal information’ of third party. The appellant further submitted that he is ready to present the Power of Attorney in the present case to the CPIO.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission directs the CPIO to take action under section 11 (1) of the RTI Act within 5 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission for giving notice to the third party i.e., Shri Kaluram’s legal heirs regarding the disclosure of ‘personal information’ of third party and on receiving the “Power of Attorney” from the appellant . The CPIO would take decision to disclose the information based on the third party’s reply.
8. The case is closed at the Commission’s end.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mahendra Kumar v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000569/MP