Details regarding two demand drafts made in appellant’s favour were denied u/s 8(1)(d) & (j) - CIC: appellant is directly connected to the transaction & cannot be characterized as a third party that has to establish a larger public interest to obtain info29 Apr, 2014
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 10.8.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information regarding two demand drafts of Rs. 3 lakhs and 7 lakhs respectively. The CPIO responded on 29.8.2012, denying 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; 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. Not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 11.9.2012. In his order dated 20.9.2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 31.12.2012.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that the two demand drafts had been deposited in her account with the Respondent bank and she wanted to know the details of the party that had got the demand drafts made in her favour. The Respondents reiterated their stand that the information in question involved commercial confidence and was in the nature of personal information. They, therefore, were of the view that it could not be disclosed to the Appellant. However, they acknowledged that the demand drafts in question had indeed been deposited in the account of the Appellant with the Respondent bank. This being so, we are of the view that the Appellant is directly connected to the transaction and cannot be characterized as a third party that has to establish a larger public interest to get the information in question. Consequently, she has the right to know the details of the party that got the demand drafts drawn. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant in her RTI application dated 10.8.2012 to her, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
Citation: Smt. D D Ajgoankar v. Bank of India in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000400/SH