Central Information Commission
Ajay B. Bose vs State Bank Of India on 15 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
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No.CIC/SBIND/C/2019/162990
Mr. Ajay B. Bose ... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India,
Premises And Estate Department,
Complex, Bandra-East, Mumbai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
Complaint:
RTI : 21-09-2019 FA : 06-11-2019
27.12.2019
CPIO : 06-11-2019 FAO : 15-11-2019 Hearing: 10-02-2022
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Premises and Estate Department, Mumbai. The particulars of information sought are:
1) Please provide details of commission deducted by SBl Mumbai Circle on Total Amount received through cash less transactions.Page 1 of 6
2) Please provide copies of deposit slips or transaction details made to deposit the above amount received through cash less transactions by SBI Mumbai Circle after deducting its Commission. etc
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 06.11.2019 has denied the requested information under section 8 (1) (e) & section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 06-11-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 15-11-2019 upheld CPIO's reply and disposed off the appeal. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Abhay, CPIO/AGM attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 03.02.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 21.09.2019 within stipulated time-frame. That after filing the complaint before the Commission, the reply has been provided by the respondent.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 06.11.2019, they have already informed the applicant that the information sought relates to the personal information and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity. That the requested information is held by the public authority in their fiduciary capacity also. Therefore the information sought falls under Section 8(1) (e) §ion 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as such denied.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the complainant has sought details of commission deducted by SBl on total amount received through cash less Page 2 of 6 transactions and other queries related thereto. That since the appellant is seeking third party personal information and such information is held under a fiduciary capacity, therefore 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 copies of deposit slips and transaction details 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."
8. Moreover, the Commission observes that the applicant has failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information; therefore the respondent has rightly denied the information sought under the relevant provision of the RTI Act vide their letter dated 06.11.2019.
9. In this regard, the Commission referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012 wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 of 6"13......The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
10. 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.Page 4 of 6
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...."
11. In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that prima facie there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information to the complainant, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
12. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 10-02-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
State Bank of India,
Premises And Estate Department,
Local Head Office, Synergy, Plot No. C-6,
G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra-East, Mumbai-400 051
2. Ajay B. Bose
Page 6 of 6