Photocopies of five cheques were denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - Appellant: the cheques were issued for office expenses in favour of Revenue Accountant, a post held by him before his retirement & he cannot be deprived of the information - CIC: rejection upheld
22 Dec, 2014Photocopies of five cheques with reverse side of the cheques issued by Punjab SEB were denied u/s 8 (1)(e) & 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. - Appellant: the cheques in question were issued for office expenses in favour of Revenue Accountant, a post held by him before his retirement; demitting the office did not deprive him of his right to seek information - CIC: rejection upheld
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Yog Raj, submitted RTI application dated 19 June 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Patiala, Bhatinda, seeking photocopies of five cheques with reverse side of the cheques issued by the Sr. Executive, Punjab State Electricity Board Operation Division, Muktsar.
2. Vide reply dated 25 June 2013, the CPIO denied the information sought on the ground that the appellant after demitting his office had no relation with the bank and the bank held the information relating to PSPCL as commercial confidence in fiduciary capacity and being third party information, hence the same could not be provided u/s 8 (1)(e) & 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. Not satisfied with response of the CPIO, the appellant preferred appeal dated 25 June 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that the CPIO had wrongly denied the information. The FAA vide order dated 20.07.2013 while upholding the decision of the CPIO recorded that the appellant’s contention that he was the operator of the said account in his official capacity did not empower him to obtain the information of the PSPCL from Bank after demitting the office. The respondent is hold this information of PSPCL being commercial confidence in fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest was involved in the disclosure such information.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he sought the said information, as he was working as Revenue Accountant in the Punjab State Electricity Board (Now Punjab Sate Power Corporation Ltd) and the cheques in question were issued for office expenses in December, 2009 in favour of Revenue Accountant, while he held that post before his retirement. Demitting the office did not deprive him of his right to seek information under the RTI Act. The CPIO stated that the appellant had sought photocopies of five cheques with reverse side of cheques issued by the Sr. Executive Engineer, PSEB Operation Division, Muktsar. The desired information was denied as the appellant had demitted office and was in no way concerned with the cheques, and the Bank held the information relating to PSPCL, their customer as commercial confidence, and in fiduciary capacity. No larger public interest was established by the appellant in the disclosure of the desired information.
5. The Commission heard the submissions of both the parties. The appellant has since retired from PSPCL and the aforementioned cheques were issued by the Sr. Executive Engineer, PSEB in appellant’s favour in his official capacity, which the respondents had rightly 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; and (e) of the RTI Act. The decisions of CPIO and FAA are upheld. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Yog Raj v. State Bank of Patiala in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/002078MP