Copy of correspondence by Bank with the IBA pursuant to his RTI application was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - Respondent: IBA recommendations regarding concerning service conditions of workmen are advisory - CIC: apply severability clause u/s 10
2 Jun, 2014Certified photocopy of the Bank’s letter written to the third party IBA pursuant to his RTI application & the reply thereon by the IBA was denied u/s 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; & (j) - Respondent: the recommendations made by the IBA concerning service conditions of workmen are advisory in nature & are taken into account by the bank to decide the service conditions of workmen; the same is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity - CIC: provide the information sought after applying the severability clause u/s 10
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000789/SH
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 8.1.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking certified copy of IBA’s Circulars/Letters with enclosures relating to service conditions of workmen, issued from 1.10.2012 to 31.12.2012, received by the bank. The CPIO responded on 11.2.2013 and denied the information under 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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 11 of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 22.2.2013. In his order dated 18.3.2013, the FAA directed the CPIO to provide the information to the Appellant. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 3.5.2013.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000888/SH
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 11.3.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking certified photocopy of the Bank’s letter written to the third party IBA pursuant to his RTI application dated 8.1.2013 (mentioned in the preceding paragraph) and the reply thereon by the IBA; as well as the decision of the CPIO regarding disclosure of information sought in the above mentioned RTI application dated 8.1.2013. The CPIO responded on 8.4.2013 and denied the information concerning correspondence between the bank and the IBA, under 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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 (j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 17.4.2013. In his order dated 11.5.2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’s reply. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 29.5.2013.
3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. With regard to the information sought by the Appellant vide his RTI application dated 8.1.2013 (File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000789/SH), the Appellant acknowledged having received the information pursuant to the order dated 18.3.2013 passed by the FAA. He, however, contended that the information had not been provided to him within a period of thirty days from the filing of the RTI application. He, therefore, questioned the decision of the Respondents to charge him Rs. 6/ as photocopying charges for providing the information. In this context, he quoted the Commission’s decision No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000416 and CIC/DS/A/2012/000259 dated 24.9.2012, in which the Commission had observed as follows:
“Further, Commission reiterates that prescribed fee as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 can only be charged from the appellant within 30 days of receipt of the RTI application. After the lapse of the said period, the information must necessarily be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the Act.”
In view of the foregoing, we direct the CPIO to refund the amount of Rs. 6/ charged from the Appellant as photocopying charges, within seven days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. In his appeal to the Commission, the Appellant has also pleaded for direction to the Respondent Bank to suitably compensate the detriment suffered by him. However, we see no ground to direct the Respondents to pay any compensation.
4. Coming to the RTI application dated 11.3.2013 (File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000888/SH) the Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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 (j) of the RTI Act. They submitted that the recommendations concerning service conditions of workmen, made by the IBA, are advisory in nature and are taken into account by the bank to decide the service conditions of workmen. They further submitted that this being the nature of the recommendations, information concerning the same is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed. The Respondents also drew our attention to the Commission’s order No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000258/05599 dated 3.12.2013, in which the Commission had upheld the decision of the FAA to deny information concerning IBA’s circulars / letters for the period 1.7.2012 to 30.9.2012 under 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that he has challenged the above decision of the Commission before the Gujarat High Court. In response our query, he stated that the High Court has not granted a stay on the above decision.
5. The Appellant contended that in his RTI application dated 11.3.2013, he had not asked for the IBA circulars / letters, which were the subject matter of the Commission’s decision dated 3.12.2013 mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Instead, he had sought copies of the correspondence, under Section 11 of the RTI Act, between the Respondents and the IBA with reference to the information sought in his RTI application dated 8.1.2013. In the above context, we note that in its order No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000652 dated 16.11.2009, the Commission had considered the disclosure of third party information in the context of Section 11(1). In the above order, the Commission had observed the following:
“In sum, disclosure of third party’s submission to a CPIO under Section 11 is the norm except when CPIO is persuaded that such disclosure would jeopardize the third party’s interest or inflict on him harm or injury.”
6. Taking into account the above and submissions made before us, we direct the CPIO to provide the information sought in the RTI application dated 11.3.2013 of the Appellant after applying, if necessary, the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act to sever such information as is covered by 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; 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; of the RTI Act. The CPIO is further directed to provide this information within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
7. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Sh. A R Shah v. United Bank of India in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000789/SH File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000888/SH