Information about total complaints regarding the counterfeit notes reported from 20-06-2012 etc were denied u/s 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(j) - CIC: the public authority to take action under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and issue notice to the third party
2 May, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Mr. Uday Radha Krishna, has submitted the RTI application dated 02 November 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Ara, seeking information regarding the counterfeit notes reported from 20-06-2012 through a total of 12 points.
2. Vide reply dated 28 November 2012, the CPIO denied to provide the information by claiming exemption under Section 8 (1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 in point no. 1 to 4; of 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. 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 Act on point no 6 to 12 and in context of point no. 5 replied that the information is already assessable by the staff members of bank. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 06 December 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA) for setting aside the order of the CPIO. Vide order dated 31 December 2012, the FAA upheld the order of the CPIO.
3. Not satisfied by the FAA’s reply, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Uday Radha Krishna was present at the hearing and made submissions form Buxar. The respondents, Shri R.C. Ahuja, CPIO and Shri Arvind Kumar Sharma, FAA were present at Bhojpur.
5. The appellant submitted that he sought information regarding the total no. of complaints received regarding counterfeit notes for the period 20-06-2012. The CPIO submitted that as per records no complaints had been formally received regarding the counterfeit notes. Further, information sought pertaining to Shri K.L. Bareja, former Circle Head may not be disclosed 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. 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 being third party information. The appellant submitted that the respondent should have taken resort to addressing the third party under Section 11 which they have not done.
Decision Notice
6. The Commission directs the public authority to take action under Section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act, giving notice to the third party, Shri K.L. Bareja regarding the disclosure of his personal information under the RTI Act within 5 days. The CPIO will take decision based on the third party’s reply within 10 days of receiving the same.
7. In rest of the points, the CIC upholds the decision of the CPIO that the information sought regarding the complaints may not be disclosed as the same is not available with the bank.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Uday Radha Krishna v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000371/MP