Copies of the rent/ lease agreement entered by HIEMA with a Bank & latest rent receipt were sought - Appellant: HIEMA is not charging the obligatory services tax and has defied the bye laws relating to setback - CIC: Denial of information upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri U M Taranath, submitted RTI application dated 5 March 2013 before the Chief Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Mysore; seeking information regarding rent/ lease agreement entered with HIEMA, Mysore etc., through a total of 2 points.

2. Vide reply dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. March 2013, CPIO denied the information on the ground that the information was also pertaining to third party which explicitly instructed them not to furnish the information to the appellant. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s replies, the appellant preferred appeal dated 24 April 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 6 May 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also explained the same.

3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today. The appellant submitted that he had sought copies of the rent/ lease agreement entered by HIEMA, Mysore with the respondent Bank and latest rent receipt/invoice issued by HIEMA, Mysore. The appellant stated that it was learnt that HIEMA is not charging services tax even though it was obligatory for the company to do and that the company has constructed their building defying the bye laws relating to setback.

5. The respondent submitted that they had considered the request. The information sought was third party information and, therefore, they sought the consent of the third party i.e. HIEMA u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 to furnish the information to the appellant which had been denied by the HIEMA. Besides, they did not find any larger public interest involved in this matter, therefore they denied the information.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO/FAA. The appellant may take up his complaint at the appropriate forum for its redressal. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri U. M. Taranath v. State Bank of Mysore in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001807/MP