Central Information Commission
Mrgulabrao Ganpat Madavi vs Department Of Posts on 23 June, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No. CIC/BS/A/2015/000833/10646
23 June 2016
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Gulabrao Ganpat Madavi,
R/o - Near Mhada Colony,
Camp Area, Rampuriward,
Dist - Gadchiroli - 442605
Respondent : CPIO / Sr. Superintendent of Posts,
Department of Post,
O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Posts,
Pune City East Post Division,
Pune - 411037
RTI application filed on : 17/11/2014
PIO replied on : 24/11/2014
First appeal filed on : 10/02/2015
First Appellate Authority order : 26/02/2015
Second Appeal dated : 26/03/2015
Information sought:
The appellant has sought the details of investment made by Sh. Ajit Deshpande in various small savings schemes and commission earned from the year 2010 to 2014.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Abhijeet Bansode CPIO through VC M: 07028007229 The appellant was given opportunity to participate in the hearing but he is absent. The CPIO stated that the appellant in his RTI application had sought information regarding investments made by Sh. Ajit Deshpande who works as an agent for the post office and they had carried out the process as outlined under Section 11 of the RTI Act but Shri Deshpande objected to the disclosure. He further stated that information relates to third party, is personal in nature and no larger public purpose has been demonstrated by the appellant to justify the disclosure. He claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision notice:
Accounts of customers maintained at post offices/banks are held under fiduciary relationship and information relating to such accounts is personal in nature and is exempted from Page 1 of 2 disclosure to third party under Section 8(1)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure.
The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to demonstrate that the disclosure of the information asked for by him is in larger public interest. It being so, there is no need to interfere with the respondent's decision.
The matter is closed.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2