Copy of legal opinion obtained by a bank in connection with an order of the Supreme Court relating to the appellant was denied u/s 8(1)(e) - CIC: denial upheld as the Appellant could not establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure
3 Oct, 2014File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001166/SH
This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 15.2.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on seven points concerning action taken on the communications addressed by him to the Respondents regarding some discrepancies in his service folder. Not having received a reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 27.3.2013. In his order dated 5.4.2013, the FAA directed the CPIO to dispose of RTI application on merits within ten working days. The Appellant approached the CIC in second appeal on 24.7.2013.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001443/SH
2. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 7.1.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points regarding legal opinion obtained by the bank in connection with an order of the Supreme Court. The CPIO responded on 9.3.2013 and denied the information under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 15.3.2013. Not having heard from the FAA, he approached the CIC in second appeal on 6.8.2013. 3. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001166/SH
4. The Appellant submitted that despite the direction of the FAA in his order dated 5.4.2013, the CPIO has not provided the information sought by him. He prayed for direction to the CPIO to provide the information and for imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act for not responding to his RTI application. Shri V. K. Goyal, Senior Manager, who represented the Respondents stated that he was unable to make a submission in the matter because of departure of the CPIO on transfer. We cannot accept this argument. Our notice for today’s hearing was issued on 26.6.2014 and the Respondents had sufficient time to prepare themselves for the hearing. In response to our query, the representative of the Respondents stated that Shri V. K. Srivastava, General Manager is the First Appellate Authority.
5. Having considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties, we direct the CPIO to provide information, free of cost, to the Appellant, in response to the queries in his RTI application dated 15.2.2013, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. We also direct Shri V. K. Srivastava, General Manager and FAA to file a report to the Commission regarding action taken on the RTI application dated 15.2.2013, within twenty days of the receipt of this order. His report should cover, inter alia, the day to day action taken on this application and include the name(s) and designation of the officer(s), who dealt with it. In case the officer(s) in question has / have been transferred, the report should also contain information regarding their current official address. We will take further action, as necessary, on receipt of the above report from the FAA.
File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001443/SH
6. The Appellant reiterated his request for provision of information regarding the legal opinion obtained by the bank in connection with an order of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the order of the Supreme Court was regarding his promotion and was against the stand taken by the Respondents in the matter. He further submitted that the above order has been implemented by the Respondents only partially and he has filed a petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding the above issue. The Respondents confirmed that the petition of the Appellant is pending before the High Court.
7. We have considered the records and the submissions made before us by both the parties. We note that the Appellant is not satisfied with implementation of the order of the Supreme Court by the Respondents and has taken up the matter in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In so far as his request for provision of copies of the legal opinion, obtained by the bank, is concerned, we note that this information is covered by Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest warranting its disclosure. In view of the foregoing, we see no ground to interfere with the decision of the Respondents to deny the information in response to the RTI application dated 7.1.2013.
8. With the above observation, the appeal on File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001443/SH is disposed of.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P P Pahwa v. UCO Bank in File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001166/SH File No. CIC/VS/A/2013/001443/SH