Information regarding the account belonging to appellant’s deceased brother was denied u/s 8(1)(e)&(j) - CIC: appellant is not the nominee in the accounts of his late brother, information may not be disclosed as this is a third party information
1. The appellant, Shri Prem Nath Sehgal, has submitted RTI application dated 13 December 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh; seeking information in relation to the A/c No. 101137 50167 55049786623 belonging to his brother Shri Satish Kumar Sehgal through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide order dated 5 January 2012, CPIO furnished the information sought in point No. 1 and denied the rest to the appellant 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; & 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, 2005. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 21 January 2012 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 31 January 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision as the appellant had not submitted the death certificate with the original RTI application and directed the CPIO to obtain the affidavit regarding relationship and family tree from the appellant and then furnish the account information to all the heirs.
4. The appellant submitted that his younger brother expired on 12 September 2011 and he was the nominee in his account with the public authority bank. Despite several reminders, no information had been furnished to him by the CPIO regarding the payment of the amount left in his late brother’s account. The appellant also submitted that similar information has been furnished to him by several other banks.
5. The CPIO submitted that as per their records, no registration form is available and name of the appellant as nominee does not figure in the nomination register and the pass book. The appellant has been informed to submit an affidavit to the bank establishing the family tree of the bank account holder and subsequently, after obtaining the NOCs from other relatives, the appellant will be given the money from the account of the deceased’s account. Further, account opening form is currently not available with the bank. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant. The CPIO offered all help to the appellant to resolve the issue.
6. The appellant is not the nominee in the accounts of his late brother, as per the Bank’s record, therefore, the information sought may not be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005 as this is a third party information. The Public Authority, however, informed the appellant of the procedure to be followed in the matter. The present appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.
Citation: Shri Prem Nath Sehgal v. State Bank of Patiala in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000728/MP