Information relating to the present salary and the past salary paid to the teachers of a public school was denied u/s 8(1)(d) &(e) - PIO: it is third party information held in fiduciary capacity - CIC: response is in conformity with the RTI Act
17 Dec, 2013O R D E R
Facts:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 372012 seeking information about the emoluments paid to the teachers of M/s Galaxy Residential Public School from 2009 to date. He also wanted to know whether the payment was made through cheque or cash and if so their account nos., father’s name and addresses of the teachers.
2. The CPIO responded on 1472012, denying information to the appellant 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; and 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; of the RTI Act 2005 on ground of a third party information. The appellant filed an appeal with the first appellate authority (FAA) on 2382012. The FAA did not respond. The appellant approached the Commission on 22112012 in a second appeal.
Hearing:
3. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 372012 and stated that he was seeking information relating to the present salary and the past salary paid to the teachers of a public school from 2009 todate. The appellant stated that he also wanted to know whether the salary was paid through cheques or cash and if so their account numbers, father’s name and addresses of the teachers in question be provided.
4. The respondent stated that the RTI was responded to on 1472012 by the CPIO and the information was denied 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; and 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; of the RTI Act to the appellant on ground of a third party information.
5. The response of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act, 2005. No action is required at the level of the Commission.
Decision:
6. The approach taken by the respondent in the matter is upheld. Appeal is disposed of. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Chandra Bhushan Singh v. Punjab National Bank in Decision No.CIC/VS/A/2013/000078/5551