Seeking information relating to cash credit limits of certain bank accounts - information was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) – CIC: third party statement of accounts, the stock details, the guarantors are exempt from disclosure
15 Oct, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 12-5-2012 seeking information on 9 counts relating to cash credit limits and other related issues.
2. The CPIO responded on 17-5-2012, denying 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; 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; & 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 on ground of personal information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 30-6-2012. The FAA did not respond. The appellant approached the Commission on 15-9-2012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 12-5-2012 and stated that the respondent bank has avoided giving him the information. The appellant stated that the CPIO in his response dated 17-5-2012 had denied him the information 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; 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; & 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.
4. The appellant stated that he wants information regarding the cash credit limits of certain accounts.
5. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking information not about himself but about a medical store regarding the cash credit limit of that medical store along with the statement of accounts, the stock details, the guarantors and various other specified details. The respondent stated that this was clearly third party information and hence the information was denied to the appellant.
6. The respondent further stated that the appellant had filed an appeal with the FAA and it has been disposed of on 29-8-2012. The respondent stated that the FAA had agreed with the decision of the CPIO and stated that the appeal was devoid of any merit and the appeal was not allowed. The respondent stated that the appellant has not provided a copy of his appeal to the respondent.
7. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act.
Decision:
8. The decision of the FAA is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Manohar Singh v. State Bank of India RBO in decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001382//04543