Information about a bank account of village panchayat was denied u/s 8(1)(j) – Appellant alleged irregularities in the working of panchayat - CIC: appellant had made allegation but has not established any larger public interest; appeal rejected1 May, 2014
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 17.4.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking some information about a third party account in the Respondent bank. The CPIO responded on 18.4.2012, denying information under 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 the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 25.4.2012. In his order dated 26.4.2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 4.6.2012.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that the account in question belongs to the village panchayat. Since there have been irregularities in the working of the panchayat, he should be provided the information sought by him. We note that the Appellant has not established any larger public interest that would warrant the disclosure of this information, except for his allegation regarding irregularities in the working of the panchayat. He is at liberty to agitate this matter in an appropriate forum. However, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny information in this case.
3. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Ramsumer Pal v. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000405/SH