Information relating to bank guarantee issued by bank in favour of an entity - copies of correspondence and telephone records pertaining to the bank and their various offices - denied u/s 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) - CIC: issue notice u/s 11
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 27-2-2012 seeking information relating to bank guarantee issued by the bank in favour of an entity for the period 20-10-2012.
2. The CPIO responded on 22-7-2012. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 26-7-2012. The FAA responded on 27-8-2012, denying the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d), 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; 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 on grounds of fiduciary relationship, commercial confidence and personal information. The appellant approached the Commission on 26-9-2012 in a second appeal.
3. I heard the appellant through videoconferencing. The respondent was present personally at the hearing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 27-2-2012 and stated that he was seeking copies of the correspondence and the telephone records as mentioned in the RTI application pertaining to the respondent and their various offices including zonal office. The appellant by way of a background explained that a certain entity had borrowed a significant amount of money from the respondent for executing a power project and that the appellant’s company had consequently entered into an agreement with that entity which was a loan account holder of the bank.
5. The respondent stated that they had two points to make:
(a) that the appellant is seeking information like telephone records between the bank at different levels and various correspondences which, even if available, was in the nature of internal correspondence and of confidential nature and that in so far as telephone records are concerned, the office cannot be expected to maintain such records; and
(b) that the information that the appellant is seeking is in their view clearly third party information.
6. The respondent is directed to undertake action under section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act for obtaining the submission of the third party with regard to disclosure of information. Compliance must be done within 30 days of this order. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Devidas G. Kayane v. Bank of Maharashtra in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001455//04688