Central Information Commission
Ms.Anjula Nagpal vs Bank Of India on 21 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001469/SG/14728
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2010/001469/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mrs. Anjula Nagpal
20A/73, Punjabi Bagh(West)
New Delhi-110026
Respondent : Mr. Sulakhan Singh
PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager Bank of India New Delhi Zone Jeewan Bharati, Level-5 Tower-1, 124, Connaught Circus New Delhi-110026 RTI application filed on : 12/02/2010 PIO replied on : 06/04/2010 First Appeal filed on : 23/04/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 25/08/2010 Second Appeal received on : 20/10/2010 Information Sought:
(As according to letter dated 20/11/2009)
1.Board of Resolution dated 25/08/2009.
2.Facility Agreement dated 25/08/2009.
3.Inter-se Agreement dated 25/08/2009.
4.Deed of Guarantee dated 25/08/2009.
5.Supplementary Agreement for change in repayment schedule of term loan dated 25/08/2009.
6.Acknowledgement of debt & securities/Revival letter dated 25/08/2009.
7.Revival Letter dated 22.09.2009.
8.Acknowledgement of Debt as forwarded by you to the company vide your letter dated 29.06.2009.
9.any other document signed by the company after 1st july 2009 till date.
Reply:
As Appellant is one of the directors of the bank, he may seek information/documents from the company itself and at any time.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
1.All the documents, except Board Resolution dated 25/08/2009 are the record of the bank and not of the company hence copy of same may not be available with the company.
2.as per the Appellants knowledge no board meeting has taken place for last one year.
Order Of the First Appellate Authority:
As the company is having the documents, Appellant being a Director, may pursue the same at the company.
As regards the other allegations made by the Appellant, it is observed that these are internal matters between Appellant and the company and deserves no comments from Bank. Ground of the Second Appeal:
Not satisfied by the response of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Sulakhan Singh, PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager and Ms. C. S. Rajani, Manager (Law);
The Appellant has sought information regarding M/s ABA Builders who are customers of the Bank. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure '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;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
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 21 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)DIS