Information regarding account details of M/s. Saru Engineering Cororation Ltd., of which appellant was a shareholder was denied by PIO u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(e) - CIC: the information sought is held in the fiduciary capacity with the bank; appeal dismissed
16 Jun, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Arun Kumar Mithal, submitted RTI application dated 5 May 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Meerut Cantt; seeking information regarding account details of M/s. Saru Engineering Cororation Ltd., of which appellant was a shareholder, through a total of 4 points.
2. The appellant preferred appeal dated 30 June 2011 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when he didn’t receive any reply from the CPIO concerned within the stipulated time period. Vide reply dated 26 July 2012, CPIO denied the information to the appellant u/s 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. & (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Vide order dated 25 August 2011, FAA upheld the CPIO decision and held that the requested information was exempted u/s 8(1) (d) & (e) of the RTI Act, 2005.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Arun Kumar Mithal, was not present at the hearing. The respondents, Shri Avdhesh Kumar Agarwal, Deputy Manager and Shri Nitin Jain, Deputy Manager, made submissions from Meerut.
5. The appellant in his written submission had sought information regarding bank account of M/s. Saru Engineering Corporation Limited.
6. The CPIO submitted that information sought is of the bank’s customer and may not be disclosed as the same is held in the fiduciary capacity with the bank. This is also personal information of third party. It attracts 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; and 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. Further, the information may not be disclosed merely on the grounds that the appellant is a shareholder in M/s. Saru Engineering Corporation Limited.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission upholds the CPIO’s submission that the information sought is held in the fiduciary capacity with the bank and hence may not be disclosed. The appeal is dismissed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Arun Kumar Mithal v. State Bank of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003609/MP