Information points pertaining to failed ATM transaction & reasons for non-compliance of RBI Directives - CIC: Information pertaining to names, designations & nature of duties discharged by government officials cannot be classified as personal information
13 Jan, 2019O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Anna Salai, Chennai seeking information on fourteen points pertaining to his failed ATM transaction on 20.01.2017, and reasons for non-compliance of RBI Directives, including, inter-alia,
(i) valid reasons that forced Trichur Branch to refuse to acknowledge his mails dated 31.01.2017 and 14.02.2017,
(ii) valid reasons that forced Trichur Branch to reuse to reply to para 3 of his mail dated 14.02.2017 even though specially requested to reply immediately on its receipt, and
(iii) valid reasons for non-compliance of RBI Directive No. RBI/2010/11/547 DPSS. PD No. 2632/02.10.002/2010-2011 dated 27.05.2011. 14.02.2017,
(ii) valid reasons that forced Trichur Branch to reuse to reply to para 3 of his mail dated 14.02.2017 even though specially requested to reply immediately on its receipt, and
(iii) valid reasons for non-compliance of RBI Directive No. RBI/2010/11/547 DPSS. PD No. 2632/02.10.002/2010-2011 dated 27.05.2011.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO wrongly denied information on most of the points on various grounds and that the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought by him free of cost, to direct the public authority to compensate him for the loss, agony and detriment suffered for the last many months and having felt fooled and insulted and direct the public authority to pay him full compensation for 44 days @ Rs.100/- per day
Hearing:
3. The appellant was absent despite notice and the respondent Shri Muthugunasekhar, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that the appellant sought redressal of his grievance vide point nos. (a) to (d), (h) and (i) of the RTI application. The respondent further stated that such information sought by the appellant is in the nature of justification which is under the domain of adjudicating authorities, hence, the same cannot be provided to the appellant. The respondent cited the judgment of Dr. Celsa Pinto vs. Goa State Information Commission, in which the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that,
“……The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification…...”
Further, the respondent stated that the disclosure of names and designations of officers, sought vide point no. (e) of RTI application would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of third parties, hence, the same is exempted under 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 RTI Act. The respondent submitted that information sought vide point nos. (j) to (n) of RTI application was provided to the appellant.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, agrees that the information sought by the appellant vide point nos. (a) to (d), (h) and (i) of the RTI application is clarificatory in nature, which does not fall within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. Further, the CPIO is also not expected to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. The Commission also notes that the information sought vide point no. (e) of RTI application pertains to names, designations and nature of duties discharged by government officials. Such information cannot be classified as personal information and hence, its disclosure has been wrongly denied by the respondent under 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 RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to provide information sought vide point no. (e) of RTI application, to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava
Information Commissioner
Citation: M.K. Dayanandan v. CPIO: Indian Overseas Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2017/160096 Date: 12.12.2018