Copy of complaint & enquiry report regarding cancellation of Business Correspondence Code without prior notice was denied u/s 8(1)(h) stating that the matter was pending in Court - CIC: disclosure can affect the finalization of the case, appeal rejected
7 Jul, 2015Copy of complaint & enquiry report regarding cancellation of Business Correspondence Code without prior notice was denied u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; stating that the matter was pending in Court - CIC: Court case is yet to be finalized therefore any disclosure in this respect can affect and impede the finalization of the case, appeal rejected
Names of villages given to six BC/BF, for enlisting business and the commission charges pending for payment were sought - PIO: appellant had been provided the list of villages allotted to him; information regarding other business correspondent was denied as it was third party information - CIC: information sought cannot be disclosed u/s 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. , appeal dismissed
ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Ram Sumran Parasari, submitted RTI application dated October 29, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bareilly seeking complaint dated 1.10.2012 regarding cancellation of Business Correspondence Code in case of Shri Ram Sumran Parasari & Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma without prior notice and copy of enquiry report with respect to the said complaint etc.
2. Vide reply dated November 13, 2013, the CPIO informed the appellant that the matter was pending before the Court therefore, information could not be given. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated November 22, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) seeking information. Vide order dated March 5, 2014, the FAA directed the CPIO concerned to provide information to the appellant, if available.
3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission seeking information.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was a business facilitator/business correspondent appointed by the bank for offline as well as online services but the commission was paid by the bank only for online services and not for the offline business carried out by him. He stated that he had filed the present RTI seeking information related to his service as business facilitator for the respondents. The respondents stated that the appellant was appointed as a business facilitator in 2008 on commission basis for collection of loan applications, etc. according to RBI guidelines and after this he was appointed as Business correspondent for opening accounts in rural areas for which the appellant was allotted certain villages to render his services. They stated that the appellant instead of sitting at the centers as allotted to him started sitting in front of the SBI branch and opening accounts for people who were visiting the branch. A complaint was received by them against the appellant for charging excess money for services and for not working at the centre allotted to him. They had the matter inquired into. The respondents added that the appellant had been removed from rendering his services to SBI. The information sought for could not be given u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondents informed the Commission that the matter was pending in Court and the inquiry was the subject matter in the court case.
5. The Commission holds that information cannot be provided to the appellant u/s 8(1) (h) as inquiry is the subject matter of the Court case and the case is yet to be finalized therefore any disclosure in this respect can affect and impede the finalization of the case. The appeal is disposed of.
CIC/MP/A/2014/001034
1. The appellant, Shri Ram Sumran Parasari, submitted RTI application dated October 20, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Bareilly seeking about the names of two villages given to six BC/BF including himself for enlisting business and the commission charges pending for payment.
2. Vide reply dated November 13, 2013, the CPIO informed the appellant that the matter was pending before the Court therefore, information could not be given. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated November 22, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) seeking information. Vide order dated March 5, 2014, the FAA directed the CPIO concerned to provide information to the appellant, if available.
3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission seeking information.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he was a business facilitator/business correspondence appointed by the bank for offline as well as online services but the commission was paid by the bank only for online services and not for the offline business carried out by him. He stated that he had filed the present RTI seeking information related to his service as business facilitator to the respondents. The respondents stated that the appellant had been provided the list of villages allotted to him after the FAA’s order dated 28.2.2014. The respondents added that information sought by the appellant regarding other business correspondent was denied as it was third party information.
5. The Commission holds that information sought for about Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma is third party u/s 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. and cannot be given to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Ram Sumran Parasari v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000958, CIC/MP/A/2014/001034