Name of person to whom payments were made through 7 cheques for midday meal scheme was denied u/s 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) & 8(1)(j) - Applicant: a larger public interest is involved as payment made in some wrong person’s accounts - CIC: disclosure ordered
14 Jun, 2014Name of the person to whom payments had been made through 7 different cheques from bank account was denied u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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 including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; - Respondent: the monetary transaction of bank’s customers are third party information which are held in fiduciary capacity attracting exemption u/s 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; & 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. - Applicant: a larger public interest is involved in the disclosure of information as cheques issued under midday meal scheme by the school authorities are being put in some wrong person’s accounts - Appellant: As per the cash book received from the school authorities under separate RTI applications, payment had been made by the school authorities in the name of Shri Bhagwati Prasad, owner of the ‘kirana’ shop; However, as per the documents submitted at the hearing, signed by the Commercial Circle Officer (Rajasthan Government), Sirohi, no ‘kirana’ shop in the name of Shri Bhagwati Prasad is available in Sirohi; Hence, the money was allegedly transferred to some third person having no relation to the midday meal scheme – CIC: disclose the information as larger public interest is involved
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Yashpal Trivedi, submitted RTI application dated 19 September 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Kesarganj; seeking information regarding the name of the person to whom payments had been made through 7 different cheques from A/c No. 3541.
2. Vide reply dated 24 September 2011, CPIO denied the information u/ss. 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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 including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 30 September 2011 to the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that he had not been provided correct information by the CPIO concerned. No order had been passed by the FAA in this case.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission requesting that he should be provided correct information on his RTI application.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Yash Pal Trivedi, was represented by Shri Amrit Lal Trivedi, who attended the hearing in person. The authority letter was submitted at the hearing. The respondent, Shri P. K. Modi, CPIO, made submissions from Jodhpur.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought relates to the monetary transaction of bank’s customers which are third party information and held in fiduciary capacity. Hence, 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. 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 are attracted and the information may not be disclosed.
6. Shri Amrit Lal Trivedi submitted that there lies a larger public interest in the disclosure of information as cheques issued under midday meal scheme by the school authorities are being put in some wrong person’s accounts. As per the cash book received from the school authorities under separate RTI applications, payment had been made by the school authorities in the name of Shri Bhagwati Prasad, owner of the ‘kirana’ shop. However, as per the documents submitted at the hearing, namely signed by the Commercial Circle Officer (Rajasthan Government), Sirohi, no ‘kirana’ shop in the name of Shri Bhagwati Prasad is available in Sirohi. Hence, the money was allegedly transferred to some third person having no relation to the midday meal scheme. The issue has a larger public interest as it is related to a large number of children studying in the Government School in the area not being provided quality food under the scheme. He added that this can lead to serious adverse effect on the health of school students.
7. The CPIO in his submission stated that the appellant is free to file a complaint, outside the RTI to the Shri D.C. Mamgain, Regional Manager, SBI, R.O., Udaipur along with copy of all the important documents under the midday meal scheme.
Decision Notice
8. In the light of the facts presented by Shri Amrit Lal Trivedi and the documents submitted by him to indicate larger public interest, the details of the payments made by the Vidya Vikas Samiti School under the midday meal should come under the public domain. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide the name of the persons to whom payments had been made through seven different cheque numbers as mentioned in the RTI application. The information is to be provided within 10 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Yashpal Trivedi v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003966/MP