Information regarding a letter written to bank by Mr. SS Bali and other information related to his SF A/C was denied u/s section 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) claiming that no larger public interest established for disclosure - CIC: denial upheld

Facts:

1. The appellant, Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, has submitted the RTI application dated 11 October 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Lucknow, seeking information regarding the letter, REF No. W/C.B./P.E.N/0195100043, of Mr. Shyam Swaroop Bali addressed to bank has been received or not and other information related to his SF A/C No. 13985, through a total of 3 points.

2. Vide letter dated 16 October 2012, the CPIO denied to provide the information sought by claiming exemption 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; of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply on all points, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 23 November 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 01 December 2012, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also claimed the exemption 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.

3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the public authority has not made compliance of 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 Act.

4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, the respondents, Shri Ram Tyagi, Chief Manager/CPIO and Shri D.D. Tiwari, representing FAA, were present at the hearing and made submission from Lucknow. The appellant submitted that information sought by him has not been provided.

5. The CPIO submitted that the information sought regarding PNB customer Shri Shyam Swaroop Bali’s Bank account (third party) and related correspondence may not be disclosed as these are held in the fiduciary capacity by the bank and is related to the commercial confidence of the bank. Hence, section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 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; of the RTI Act are getting attracted in the disclosure of information. Further, information pertains to the ‘personal information’ of third party 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. 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. is also attracted. Besides, no larger public interest has been established for the disclosure of information.

Decision Notice

6. The Commission upholds the submissions made by the CPIO. The appeal is dismissed. The case is closed.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000540/MP