Central Information Commission
Ms. Veena Rani vs State Bank Of Patiala on 1 January, 2009
Central Information Commission
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00530 -SM dated 18.03.2008
Right to Information Act-2005 - Under Section (19)
Dated 01.01.2009
Appellant: Ms. Veena Rani
Respondent: State Bank of Patiala
Appellant is not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri I, Murugappan, Dy Manager, Law is present.
The brief facts of the case as under:
2. The Appellant had approached the CPIO concerned in an application dated 18 December 2008 seeking information in respect of an account maintained in the Bank in the names of certain third parties who, according to her, happened to be her late husband and father-in-law. The CPIO, in his reply dated 9 January 2008, though dispatched beyond the stipulated period, refused to disclose the information on the ground that this was in the nature of commercial confidence held by the Bank on behalf of a third-party and was also in the nature of personal information, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public interest or public activity. The CPIO referred to Section 8(1) (d) and
(j) of the Right to Information Act in support of his decision. The Appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the Bank on 23 June 2008. The Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 25 July 2008 and upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the Appellant has now approached this Commission in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, since the Appellant was absent in spite of notice, we continued with the hearing in her absence. The details of the information sought and the reply given by the CPIO and the order of the Appellate Authority were carefully perused. The Respondent submitted that at the time the Appellant had sent the application for information, one of the account holders, namely, Puran Lal was alive and, therefore, it was clear that the Appellant had no status or standing in relation to this account in any way even if she happened to be the wife of one of the account holders. He further argued that since the account was in respect of a third-party, the information in regard to this account could not be disclosed to the Appellant as exempt under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
4. After careful scrutiny of the records filed by the Appellant along with her appeal and the submissions made by the respondent, we tend to agree with the decision of the Appellate Authority in denying the information. Obviously, the details of the bank account held in the name of some third party cannot be disclosed to another as, on the face of it, it does not concern any public interest or public activity. In view of this, we reject this appeal.
5. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
Sd/-
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar