Central Information Commission
Shekhar Arvind Lonkar vs State Bank Of India on 3 February, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2019/153574
Mr. Shekhar Arvind Lonkar ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank Of India,
General Banking Department, DGM
Secretariat (B & O), Zonal
Office, Zone-I, 38612, Sharda
Chambers, 3rd Floor,
Shankarsheth Road, Pune,
Mh-411037
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 20-09-2019 FA : Not on Record SA : 05-11-2019
CPIO : 18-10-2019 FAO : Not on Record Hearing: 31-01-2022
ORDER
1. The complaint filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Pune, Maharashtra. The complainant seeking information including inter- alia is as under:-
2. The CPIO has denied to provide the requested information to the applicant. Neither first appeal nor FAO is placed on records. 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. The complainant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Jgannath Sahu, CPIO/ DGM attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 21.01.2022 and the same is taken on records.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 18.10.2019, they have already informed the applicant that the information sought is third party information and it is held by the Bank in fiduciary relationship and exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought documents provided for taking home loan of Mr. Sunil Shrikrishna and other queries related thereto. That the applicant is not connected to the account regarding which he is seeking information, therefore he remains a third party to the said account. That the bank has the responsibility to maintain the secrecy of the customer's affairs. Therefore such information is held under a fiduciary capacity and the same cannot be provided under Section 8 (1) (e) & section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission also examined the nature of fiduciary relationship involved in the instant matter whereby the information of third party's home loan were sought which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
22. ".... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer."
7. This Commission further observes that while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.
37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
8. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that adequate reply has already been provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 18.10.2019. Prima facie, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint and there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 21-01-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank Of India,
General Banking Department, DGM
Secretariat (B & O), Zonal
Office, Zone-I, 38612, Sharda
Chambers, 3rd Floor,
Shankarsheth Road, Pune,
Mh-411037
2. Shekhar Arvind Lonkar