Information regarding compromised records in the matters of certain account holders was denied u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(j) - Appellant: violation of RBI guidelines alleged - CIC: no larger public interest has been established; appeal dismissed
10 Apr, 2014ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Anil Kapoor, has submitted RTI application dated 7 December 2011 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Punjab National Bank, Bathinda; seeking information regarding the compromised records from the date of initiations of compromise proposal till its sanction in the matters of specifically mentioned parties.
2. Vide order dated 12 December 2011, CPIO denied the information under section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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 including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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. 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 28 December 2011 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 18 January 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Anil Kapoor, was not present at the hearing but on his behalf Shri Satish Kapoor attended the hearing and made submissions from Ferozepur. The respondent, Shri Madan Lal Nagori, Chief Manager/ CPIO made submissions from Bhatinda.
5. The appellant submitted that the compromise records from the date of initiation of compromise proposal till its sanction in the name of several individuals should be provided in the larger public interest as they are allegedly violating the RBI guidelines. It was further submitted that CIC in its previous decision dated 21 March 2012 (CIC/DS/A/2011/000841) has directed the public authority i.e. SBI to disclose similar information.
6. The CPIO submitted that the compromise proposals are based on the RBI guidelines/instructions and the policy made by the bank under these. The decisions are made by a Committee and Committee’s decisions are also subject to audit. In case, the appellant has a grievance, he may approach the appropriate forum. The information sought by the applicant may not be disclosed as the same attracts section 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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 including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that 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. 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 and no larger public interest has been established by the RTI applicant. The CIC in its decision dated 21 October 2013 (CIC/VS/A/2012/001665/005190) has denied the disclosure of personal information of the bank account holders under the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision Notice
7. The Commission is of the view that the disclosure of personal information of the compromise records from the date of initiation of compromise proposal till its sanction in the name of several individual account holders of the bank may not be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005 as the same attracts Section 8 (1) (d) and Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is further observed that in the CIC’s decision dated 21 March 2012 (CIC/DS/A/2011/000841), the Commission was dealing with different subject matter as the RTI applicant in that case had sought aggregate amount settled by the bank (SBI) with the defaulting parties, on yearly basis and not details of the individual defaulting parties. Also there was an element of larger public interest involved in the disclosure of the information which in the present case had not been clearly established by the appellant.
8. Hence, the CPIO’s and FAA’s order is upheld and the present appeal stands dismissed. The case is closed.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Anil Kapoor v. Punjab National Bank in Appeal: No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000444/MP