Information regarding appellant’s company account was denied u/s 8 (1)(d), (e) & (j) stating that it was third party information - CIC: Appellant cannot be treated as third party in respect of his company being the sole authorised signatory of the account

Reply sent by the respondents to the letter seeking the reason for the delay in crediting the amount to the appellant’s company account was denied u/s 8 (1)(d), (e) & (j) stating that it was a third party information - CIC: Appellant cannot be treated as third party in respect of the account of his company as he is the sole authorised signatory of the account; PIO to provide a reply to the appellant

ORDER

1. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 9.11.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding the reply sent by the Respondents to the letter dated 2.9.2013 from M/s A.B. Motor Finance (P) Ltd. and five other points. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 31.1.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 7.2.2014.

2. The Appellant submitted that he is the Director of M/s A B Motor Finance (P) Ltd. One of their creditors had remitted Rs. 5 lakhs through RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) on 5.1.2013 and the said amount was credited to the account of M/s A B Motor Finance (P) Ltd. on 3.9.2013. A letter dated 6.9.2013 was written by him to the Respondents to know the reasons of delay in crediting the amount to the account of M/s A. B. Motor Finance (P) Ltd. He further submitted that in his RTI application, the date of the letter was wrongly mentioned as 2.9.2013 instead of 6.9.2013. The Respondents submitted that they do not have in their records the letter dated 2.9.2013 or 6.9.2013. Moreover, the information sought by the Appellant related to third parties and was, therefore, denied under section 8 (1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. On our query, the Respondents confirmed that the Appellant was the sole authorised signatory of the account of M/s A B Motor Finance (P) Ltd. The Appellant submitted that he has an acknowledgment from the branch concerned regarding receipt of the letter dated 6.9.2013 by them. He also stated that the reason for the delay in crediting the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs has not been provided to him. He was informed that there was some mistake at the end of the remitting bank. However, if this were the case, the funds would have been returned to the remitting bank.

3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we note that the Appellant cannot be treated as third party in respect of the account of M/s A B Motor Finance (P) Ltd. as he was the sole authorised signatory of the account. The Appellant may submit a copy of his letter dated 6.9.2013 to the CPIO. We direct the CPIO to provide a reply to the Appellant, within twenty days of the receipt of the letter dated 6.9.2013 from him, under intimation to the Commission. In regard to the remaining points of the RTI application, we note that information pertaining to third parties and their accounts has been sought and we uphold the decision of the Respondents to deny this information under Section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

4. With the above direction and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Sanjay Kumar Kejriwal v. Bank of India in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000699