Central Information Commission
Chakradhar Mishra vs Bank Of Baroda on 15 September, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2021/106296
Mr. Chakradhar Mishra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Bank of Baroda, Regional Office
Patna Region, 4th Floor, Anand Vihar
West Boring Canal Road, Patna, Bihar-
800001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 26-08-2020 FA : 24-10-2020 SA : 10-02-2021
CPIO : 03-10-2020 FAO : 23-11-2020 Hearing : 06-09-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bank of Baroda, Patna, Bihar. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 52. The CPIO vide letter dated 03-10-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 24-10-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 23-11-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. Adv. Prabhat Kumar (Representative of the appellant) attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Santosh Kumar, CPIO/ Regional Head (AGM) attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted his written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The representative of appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on his RTI application dated 26.08.2020. He further submitted that the appellant being the husband of Smt. Kalandi Devi is entitled to receive the requested information from the respondent.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 03.10.2020, they have informed the appellant that since the appellant is seeking personal information related to third party, therefore the same cannot be provided to the appellant as per section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that the appellant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the auction of the mortgaged property belongs to his wife. The Commission observes that neither the appellant is authorized to receive such information on behalf of his wife nor has he established larger public interest in seeking such information. Therefore such information can only be sought by his wife only. It has been observed that the disclosure of such information is exempted under Page 2 of 5 section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the respondent has rightly denied the requested information under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. In this context, the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed. Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
22......"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, 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 would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions. All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship.
Such exemption would be available to such authority or department."
23. "The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not Page 3 of 5 have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its color from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]."
24."The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
9. In view of the above observations and matrix, the Commission is of the considered view that the reply provided by the respondent vide its letter dated 03.10.2020 is in order and the same is being upheld by the Commission.
10. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गु ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date : 09-09-2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Patna Region, 4th Floor, Anand Vihar West Boring Canal Road, Patna, Bihar-800001
2. Mr. Chakradhar Mishra Page 5 of 5