Central Information Commission
Shri.Prakash Damani vs Indian Overseas Bank on 18 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000033/SG/14141
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000033SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Prakash Damani
Director,
M/s. Super Sarees Private Limited,
DD House, D-32, Kasba ,
Industrial House Estate,
Phase-I, Kolkata-700017.
Respondent : Mr. T. P. Biswas
PIO & AGM
Indian Overseas Bank,
119, Park Street, 1st Floor,
Kolkata-700016
RTI application filed on : 14/06/2010
PIO replied : 11/08/2010
First appeal filed on : 26/08/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 28/09/2010
Second Appeal received on : 13/12/2010
Information sought: -
The Appellant has asked Whether Indian Overseas bank has:
1) Taken a declaration that there is no court cases pending against the company/directors and any of their creditors, erstwhile tenants erstwhile owners of the property etc. as per clause 20 of the sanction letter.
2)Taken a letter of undertaking from the subjects that there are no legal cases pending against them filed any creditors erstwhile tenants, erstwhile owners of the property etc, as per clause 23 of the sanction letter.
3) When was the first disbursement made by the bank to the applicant companies mentioned above.
4) If the above declaration and undertaking as per 1&2 has been obtained, please provide photocopies of the same upon payment of charges.
The PIO's Reply:
The PIO replied to the Appellant that the disclosure of information amount to invasion of the privacy of the constituents and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) and also 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act 2005. Also the information on account details of the customers of the bank are available to the Public Authority in fiduciary relationship as Bank Vs. Client and exempted for disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Grounds For First Appeal:
The Public Information Officer refused to disclose the information.
The First Appellant Authority's Order:
He seconds with the Public Information Officer.
Grounds For Second Appeal:
No order provided by the First Appellate authority as he agrees with the Public Information Officer. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Prasenjit Pal representing Mr. Prakash Damani on video conference from NIC-
Kolkata Studio;
Respondent: Mr. T. P. Biswas, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Kolkata Studio;
The PIO has refused to give the information on all the four queries claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d). The FAA has upheld this decision and also stated that Section 8(1)(e) would also cover the information. The first three queries of the Appellant clearly relate only to asking whether the Bank has taken certain actions or not. None of the exemptions which are claimed can be imagined to apply to the first three queries. The Commission warns the PIO not to claim exemptions without justification. When claiming exemption it is necessary that the PIO gives reasons explaining how exemption would apply.
As regards query-4 the PIO claims that the undertakings may be part of letter in which there could be various other informations provided by the Companies. The Commission recognizes that information provided by customers to a Bank is held in a fiduciary capacity if it provides any information about the customers. If the undertaking does not provide any other information about the customer the PIO is directed to provide the information on query-4. However if there is any other information or undertakings provided by the customer which the Bank feels is being held in fiduciary capacity they will state this and deny information on query-4.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 10 September 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 18 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)