Details of bank’s officers who had dealt with appellant’s case was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (j) - CIC: Providing the names would amount to the bank admitting that the alleged acts of omission and commission had indeed been committed; appeal rejected

Details of the bank’s officers who had dealt with the case of appellant’s industrial unit was denied u/s 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; & (j) - CIC: Provision of the names of its employees would amount to the respondents admitting that the alleged acts of omission and commission had indeed been committed - CIC: appellant has not established any larger public interest; appeal rejected

Facts

1. According to the appeal, the Appellant filed an RTI application on 5th January 2011 seeking information on seven points. The CPIO responded on 1.2.2011 and denied the information 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. of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 6.4.2011. In his order dated 18.4.2011, the FAA stated that since the appeal had been filed after the expiry of thirty days and the Appellant had not specified sufficient cause for this delay, the appeal was time barred and could not be considered. Aggrieved with the replies received by him the Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 31.5.2011.

Hearing on 3.2.2014

2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant. He submitted that the information had been denied to him without any valid cause. It is seen that in his RTI application, the Appellant had asked the Respondents to give him the names, designation and present address of the officers of the Respondents who, according to the Appellant, had been responsible for seven alleged acts of omission and commission towards an industrial unit of the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that in seeking the information as per his RTI application, he did not want the bank to admit that its employees had been responsible for the alleged acts of omission and commission. He just wanted the details of the bank’s officers who had dealt with the case of his industrial unit, as he wanted to file a criminal case against them.

3. No one was present to represent the Respondents in spite of a written notice having been sent to them. Accordingly, this case is adjourned to be heard again on 21 s t March, 2014 at 11.45 a.m . through video conference. The Commission takes a very serious note of the absence of the Respondents. We direct that the CPIO must be present during the next hearing of this matter on 21 s t March, 2014 at 11.45 a.m . In case the Respondents are absent during the next hearing also, the case will be decided exparte. The venue for the Appellant and the Respondents is as under: For Appellant Room No. 222, 2nd Floor, NIC UT Chandigarh Unit, Delux Building, UT Secretariat, Sector 9 –D, 160009, Chandigarh. The Contact Officer is Ms. Anuradha Kaushal, Scientist C & Mr. Jagjit Singh and Contact No. Is 01722740705 / 2740708 For Respondents Room No. 222, 2nd Floor, NIC UT Chandigarh Unit, Delux Building, UT Secretariat, Sector 9 –D, 160009, Chandigarh. The Contact Officer is Ms. Anuradha Kaushal, Scientist C & Mr. Jagjit Singh and Contact No. Is 01722740705 / 2740708

Hearing on 21.3.2014

3. The matter was heard again today. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information. They further submitted that the Appellant has been in litigation with the bank in various fora since 1998. On being asked by us to make a submission regarding any larger public interest, warranting the disclosure of the information sought by him, the Appellant stated that he had been a victim of employees of the bank, who had flouted the law in their dealings with him.

4. We have carefully considered the records and the submissions made before us. We note that in his RTI application, the Appellant has asked the Respondents to give him the names and present addresses of its employees who, according to him, were responsible for various alleged acts of omission and commission towards an industrial unit of the Appellant. Provision of the names of its employees, in response to the above RTI request, would amount to the Respondents admitting that the alleged acts of omission and commission had indeed been committed. Further, the information concerning the addresses of its employees, held by the bank, is covered by Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest that would warrant the disclosure of this information. He has only cited his grievances against the bank and its employees and we note that he is already in litigation with the bank on this issue. Accordingly, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information.

5. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.

(Sharat Sabharwal)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Sh. Jaswant Singh v. Canara Bank in File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001639/SH