Statement of account of a government department connected with receipt of stamp duty payments was denied u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) - PIO: it was third party information held in fiduciary capacity, not connected with the appellant - CIC: appeal rejected
16 Dec, 2013O R D E R
RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 7.8.2012 seeking statement of account in respect of Sahzila Nibandhak VargI, Thane dated 22.10.2005. The CPIO denied the information on 3.9.2012 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; 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 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 15.9.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 4.10.2012 stating that the appellant has not shown any connection to the account or how any public interest would be served by the disclosure of this information. The appellant approached the Commission on 10.12.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The appellant referred to the RTI application of 7.8.2012 and stated that he wanted statement of account of 22.10.2005 in respect of a government department connected with the receipt of stamp duty. The appellant stated that the respondent bank has denied the information 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; 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 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.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant was referring to an account which the bank had in a fiduciary relationship and while the bank understood that this was a government account receiving stamp duty payments, which could be from an institution or an individual, but this was clearly coming under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent further stated that the appellant could not explain why he wanted a copy of the statement of account and when he was asked, he simply produced a challan bearing a name which was not that of the appellant. The respondent stated that they reached a conclusion that this information was coming under the exemption from disclosure clauses taking into consideration that this is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and also this was third party information not connected with the appellant.
6. The action taken by the respondent is in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision
7. The decision of the FAA is upheld. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma)
Information Commission
Citation: Shri Shiraz Karim Merchant v. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2013/000222/05565