One partner out of three of a partnership firm passed away and the two survivors reconstituted the partnership firm - copy of the dissolution deed of the old and new partnerships sought by some family member - CIC: denial u/s 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) upheld
O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 1962012 requesting for a copy of dissolution deed of some entities.
2. The CPIO responded on 1772012, denying the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act on grounds of commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 1482012. The FAA responded on 24-9-2012 and the decision of the CPIO was upheld. The appellant approached the Commission on 19-10-2012 in a second appeal.
3. The appellant and the respondent both were present personally in the hearing. The appellant was represented by her representative who reiterated the contents of the RTI application.
4. The respondent stated that the information that the appellant is seeking in the RTI request of 19-6-2012 is not connected with the appellant and this information has been denied. The respondent stated that the information is being sought in the backdrop of a partner unit which was connected with the bank and this partnership entity had an account in the bank and hence the bank has the information of the partnership agreement.
5. The respondent stated that the partnership comprises of three persons but one has passed away and the two survivors reconstituted the partnership firm. The respondent explained that some other family members, who have not made known their relationship to the survivors, have approached the bank with the request to provide a copy of the dissolution deed of the old and new partnerships. The respondent stated that this matter was clearly of commercial confidence and of a fiduciary relationship and also third party information, hence it had to be denied 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.
6. Action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
7. The decision of the FAA is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Ms Kumud Bhargava v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/001663 & 64/05118