Information regarding correspondence of a bank with 5 individuals in connection with the account of M/s Swastika Knitting & Spinning Mills was denied as information related to third parties & a suit is pending in DRT - CIC: denial u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) upheld
7 Oct, 2014Facts
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.9.2012 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points regarding correspondence of the bank with five different individuals in connection with the account of M/s Swastika Knitting and Spinning Mills. The CPIO responded on 12.11.2012 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; & (e) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 27.11.2012. In his order dated 29.12.2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant filed second appeal dated 1.4.2013 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 5.4.2013.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. The Appellant submitted that he was a partner in the firm M/s Swastika Knitting and Spinning Mills since 1985 and resigned from partnership of the said firm in 1992. Later on, it was converted into proprietorship. The proprietor expired in December 2004. The Respondents have filed a suit in DRT for recovery of dues and the Appellant has been impleaded as one of the defendants. He wanted the copies of correspondence made by the Respondents with other defendants impleaded in the suit. He further submitted that he has the document in his possession, as per which, he ceased to be the partner of the firm. The Respondents submitted that they 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; & (e) of the RTI Act as the information sought related to third parties and a suit is pending in DRT, Chandigarh.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in this case.
4. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mahesh Sahnan v. Indian Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001613/SH