Seeking information pertaining to number of paramilitary salary package account holders in BSF – information denied claiming it is personal information of individuals – statistical details do not amount to be personal – CIC: provide the information
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 28.03.2012 seeking information pertaining to paramilitary salary package (PMSP) account holders in BSF.
2. The PIO responded on 21.06.2012 and denied information to the appellant under section 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 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. The appellant filed a first appeal on 24.07.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 31.08.2012. The appellant filed a second appeal on 15.09.2012 with the Commission.
3. The appellant participated in the hearing through mobile phone. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 28.03.2012 and stated that the bank’s response has been disappointing and cryptic, and it appears that the bank has responded in a mechanical way without application of mind.
5. The appellant stated that he is serving personnel in the Boarder Security Force (BSF) and that he had sought simple and straightforward information in context of a scheme known as Paramilitary Salary Package which was applicable to the paramilitary forces.
6. The appellant stated that he is seeking information regarding the (i) number of personnel in the BSF who have been given personal loans under the scheme; (ii) number of personnel in the BSF who have been given the facility of advance salary; and (iii) number of personnel in the BSF who have been given the facility of home loan.
7. The appellant stated that he is seeking information only about the BSF.
8. The appellant also stated that he is seeking only the number of personnel and he could not understand why the bank cannot provide to him a proper response on his simple stated questions, i.e., the number of personnel who have availed of the facility. The appellant stated he is seeking this information because he feels, like many others, that the bank has been selective and discriminatory in providing the facility. The appellant stated that it seems that the bank has provided the facility only in which instances where the providing of such facility is of advantage to the bank but where the bank felt that the situation was not conducive to the bank, the facility has been denied.
9. The respondent stated that the information in the form as it has been sought is not available with the branch, and that the required information will have to be collected.
10. The respondent is expected to make available the information sought by the appellant in para 6 above. Decision:
11. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant, within 30 days of this order, the information sought in context of the RTI application as per para 6 above.
Citation: Shri Rajan Kumar Singh v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001410/04580