Claiming to be legally wedded wife, the appellant sought HRA and salary details of her husband which were denied u/s 8 (1) (e) & (j) - PIO: No documentary proof of her relationship was given - CIC: Provisions of section 11 could have been followed

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 21.02.2019 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 15.10.2018 and first appeal dated 13.12.2018:-

i) संबंिधत मेनेजर ी योगेश छाबरा मंडी गोिवगढ़ म लगभग 3 साल कायरत रहा उनके कायकाल के दौरान िकतना HRA ा िकया गया I इससे संबंिधत मािणत कॉपी तथा रसीद की भी ित उपल कराई जाए I

(ii) वास के दौरान िकस मकान म िकराये पर रहा की मािणत कॉपी दी जाए I

(iii) Please provide salary details also (Latest).

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 15.10.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17.11.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal dated 13.12.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 02.01.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 21.02.2019 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 21.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds that desired information was not provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.11.2018 that salary details of the appellant’s husband Shri Yogesh Chhabra, employee of the bank, contained personal information, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest and hence, it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 02.01.2019 upheld the CPIO’s reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Sushar, Assistant General Manager, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant sought information regarding salary and HRA details of her husband Shri Yogesh Chhabra. However, the appellant did not give any documentary proof regarding her relationship with Shri Yogesh Chhabra. Hence, in the absence of such documents, the information sought was denied on the ground of personal information of third party, held by the bank in fiduciary relationship, hence, it was exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the respondent had denied the information on the ground of third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and accordingly claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. The respondent during the course of hearing submitted that though the appellant claimed that she is legally wedded wife of Shri Yogesh Chhabra about whose HRA and salary details were sought, but no documentary proof of her relationship was given. It may not be out of place to mention that if the respondent had any doubt about the relationship of the appellant with Shri Yogesh Chhabra, they could have followed provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act or sought information relating to her subsisting marriage with Shri Yogesh Chhabra. Hence, in the interest of justice, the respondent may provide proper information/reply after obtaining the relevant documents from the appellant about her relationship with Shri Yogesh Chhabra, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Daisy v. IDBI Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/IDBIL/A/2019/109728, Date of order: 09.07.2021