Video footage of ATM and other information denied u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) – appellant claimed video required to show the careless approach of the security person who did not perform his duty – CIC: Disclose video footage; SCN to PIO for delay
24 Aug, 2013ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 21112011 requesting for a certified copy of details of transaction on 12112011, soft copy as well as hard copy of video footage of ATM and complete address and identity proof of security person posted at ATM, PPN Market, Kanpur.
2. The CPIO responded on 612012, denying the 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; and 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 stating that the information sought was of commercial confidence and personal. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 122012. The FAA did not respond. The appellant approached the Commission on 1932012 in second appeal.
Hearing:
3. I heard both the parties through videoconferencing.
4. The appellant referred to his RTI application which had three points and stated that he wanted copies of the details of the transactions and the details of the video footage and the particulars of the security person.
5. The respondent stated that the information which was allowed under the RTI Act has been provided but some of the information could not be provided 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; 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 as it was third party information and also had implications for commercial confidence. The respondent stated that the information about the security person was denied.
6. What emerged during the hearing, as stated by the respondent, was that the respondent had provided the information about the details of transaction for two entries before the appellant’s transaction and two entries after the appellant’s transaction.
7. The appellant stated that he should have been given a copy of the video footage of the ATM because he wanted to bring out clearly the lackadaisical approach of the security personnel, who was duty bound to ensure that only one person was present in the ATM cabin while there were many others apart from the appellant within the ATM cabin. The appellant stated that video footage will prove what he is saying and will also show up the careless approach of the security person who did not perform his duty.
8. What emerged during the hearing was that as the matter had become so old that the appellant stated that he did not want to press his RTI application on point 3, but he wanted to have a look at the video footage of that particular date and time when he was present along with what happened before and after he left. The appellant stated that he expects the bank to show him the video footage that he has asked for.
Decision:
9. The respondent is directed:
(a) to enable the appellant to see the video footage as available in context of the RTI application;
(b) show cause why action should not be taken against the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act; and
(c) comply with the above within 30 days of this order.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Narendra Dev v. State Bank of India in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2012/000597/03466