Appellant alleged that Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association had been functioning in a highly irregular manner & sought information about its bank accounts claiming larger public interest - CIC: Information is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity

Facts

This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 7.11.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points in regard to the account maintained by Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 11.1.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 24.1.2014.

2. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act because the Appellant had not divulged his relationship with the account of Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association. The Appellant submitted that the above Association is registered with the Registrar of Societies, Tamil Nadu. He further stated that he had purchased an apartment in the housing complex. He alleged that Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association has been functioning in a highly irregular manner and has also not held its annual general meetings. Therefore, the information that he is seeking ought to be divulged to him in larger public interest. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that the Appellant has given them no proof to establish that he is a member of Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association. The Appellant stated that he has not been able to give the above proof because the Association has not included him as a member, even though he owns an apartment in the complex.

3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. It is noted that in point No. 1 of his RTI application, the Appellant enquired whether his request to place a freeze on the account of Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association was acted upon by the bank. Since this information concerns action by the bank on a communication addressed by the Appellant to them, the CPIO is directed to convey response to point No. 1 to the Appellant, within seven days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The remaining information sought by the Appellant concerns the account of Luz Golden Enclave Owners Association. We note that this information is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity. The Appellant has established neither his connection to the account, nor any larger public interest for disclosure of this information to him. His allegation regarding irregularities in the functioning of the Association cannot become the ground of larger public interest. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in response to points No. 2 to 7 of the RTI application dated 7.11.2013.

4. With the above direction and observations, the appeal is disposed of.

5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Dr. J. Vinil Kumar v. Bank of Baroda in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000291