Vinod Kumar Wahi vs State Bank Of India on 11 February, 2019

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Vinod Kumar Wahi vs State Bank Of India on 11 February, 2019

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 04.08.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.03.2017and first appeal dated 26.04.2017:-

Page 1 of 5

(i) Provide the bank pass book statement of the pension saving account no.10716099832 of appellant's father with Vijay Nagar Branch, Delhi 110 009 for the last three Years.

(ii) Details with no. of the fix deposit receipts with account nos. of the last three years till date with the amount and maturity dates.

(iii) Amount of pension credited to Smt. Sudershana Wahi (appellant's step mother) after the death of Shri Dharam Pal Wahi (appellant's father) till date.

(iv) Name of the person of nomination made for the funds (saving and fix deposits) after his death.

(v) Name of the person nomination made for pension benefits after his death.

(vi) PPO no. allotted for Pension.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.02.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State bank of India, Local Head office, Sansad Marg, New Delhi seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated nil replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 26.04.2017. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 04.08.2017 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 04.08.2017 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information seeking exemption Page 2 of 5 under subsections (1) (d) and (1) (j) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. As per Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act on us to prove the denial of information has to be justified by the PIO. The appellant stated that his father Mr. Dharam Pal Wahi and his second wife Smt. Sudershana Wahi have filed a maintenance case in the Family Court at the office of the Additional District Magistrate, Alipur Delhi in which they stated that they have no finance to meet their basic needs of food, hence, claimed maintenance of Rupees one lac per month from me and my wife to meet their basic needs to survive. The appellant needs the aforesaid information in order to defend himself and his wife in Delhi High Court for quashing of proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR. The appellant in his second appeal dated 04.08.2017 has made the following prayers to the Commission:-

(i). invoke its power under Section 19 (8) (2) (1) to direct the FAA/PIO to furnish the information immediately free of cost.

(ii). invoke its power under Section 19 (8) (c) to impose penalty to the public authority as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act, 2005.

(iii). direct the public authority to take disciplinary action against the PIO and FAA under sub section (2) of section 20 and make entry in service book/ annual performance appraisal report to defy the provisions of the RTI Act 2005.

(iv). invoke its power under Section 19 (8) (b) to direct the public authority to compensate the appellant for any loss or other detriment suffered.

(v). invoke its power under Section 18 (8) (a) (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the Right to Information to PIO and FAA.

Page 3 of 5

(vi). other directions\order as the Hon'ble Commission deem fit may be passed.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated nil denied the information stating that information sought is related to Commercial confidence, trade secrets/intellectual property, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party and also personal information of third party which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual hence, exempted under subsection (1)(d) and (1) (j) of section 8 the RTI Act. The FAA did not pass any order.

5.1. The appellant was present and heard through video conferencing. The respondent Mr. Gian Parkash Khertarpal, AGM/CPIO and Mr. R.S. Khokher, Assistant Manager, SBI, RBO-2 and DAO-1, New Delhi attended the hearing personally.

5.2. The Appellant submitted that he is the legal heir of his deceased father Mr. Dharam Pal Wahi and being a legal heir he has right to know about the account details of his deceased father. He wishes to know that how much amount was left by his deceased father in his account. In response to a query of the Commission, the appellant submitted that he is the legal heir along with three sisters. He also stated that his deceased father and his step mother have filed maintenance case against him.

5.3. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of third party account, hence they denied the same under subsections (1) (d) and(1) (j)of section 8 of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the case is sub judice in different forum and if the information is disclosed, interest of other legal heir may also be jeopardized.

Page 4 of 5

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that reply give by the respondent is proper and does not require any intervention. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) Information Commissioner Date: 11.02.2019 Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission