Information about account numbers, balance therein, name of nominee etc. in the name of applicant's deceased brother & sister in law – denied u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) – couple was issueless and applicant is a close relative – CIC orders disclosure
13 Aug, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 12.10.2010 asking information about various account numbers, the amount balance therein, name of nominee etc. in the name of his deceased brother and sisterinlaw. The PIO denied the information on 15.11.2010 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; 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. of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA on 20.12.2010. The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 21.1.2011. The appellant approached the Commission on 6.3.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant and the respondent both did not participate in the hearing.
4. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the appellant filed an RTI application on 12.10.2010 seeking information in respect of the accounts of third parties, who had passed away. It is also seen that the CPIO 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; and (j) of the RTI Act on 15.11.2010 and the FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 21.1.2011.
5. The appellant has stated that his brother and sisterinlaw, who were husband and wife, both have passed away. They were issueless according to the appellant. The appellant was seeking information about the accounts of his close relatives in the absence of anyone else.
Decision
6. The respondent is directed to enable the appellant to inspect the records pertinent to the RTI application within 30 days of this order. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Moti Wadhumal Kirpalani v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000587/03452