Central Information Commission
Shri. Ajit Kumar Das vs United Bank Of India on 30 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi -110067
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001024/SG/14971
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001024/SG
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar Das
At: Jachuck Lane, P.O:Buxi Bazar
Dist:Cuttack, PIN- 753001
Respondent : Mr. Samir Sengupta,
CPIO & GM United Bank of India 11 Hemanta Basu sarani, Kolkatta- 700 001 RTI application filed on : 04/10/2010 PIO replied : 20/10/2010 First Appeal filed on : 19/11/2010 Order of First Appellate Authority : 14/12/2010 Second Appeal received on : 20/03/2011 No. Information Sought PIO's Reply
1. The incumbency period of Lalit Kumar Das as officer-in- Information is exempted as the charge & Incharge of loan sanction in United Bank of India. same is protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. The exact period of service of Lalit Kumar Das in U.B.I Same as above.
Manada Branch Jashipur.
3. Date of joining and relieving from branch. Same as above
4. Loan sanctioned and the names of the selected beneficiary Same as above
5. The sanctioned loan schemes Same as above
6. That the information is sought for as because loan sanctioned Same as above against dead person or persons not available in the locality (which was enquired and suppressed by the personnel of UBI.
7. Loan sanctioned in forged documents which had made Same as above hindrance to public interest
8. That as reply to queries by the Regional Information Officer, Same as above Orissa Region-II speaks about non disclosure of the information and not relation to public activity and interest.
Grounds for First Appeal : Appellant not satisfied by the reply of PIO Order of the First Appellate Authority : FAA upheld the decision of PIO Grounds for Second Appeal :
Appellant not satisfied by the order and reply of both FAA & PIO.
Page 1 of 2Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar Das along with Mr. Kamal Kant Mohanty on Video Conferencing from NIC Cuttak, Odisha Respondent : Mr Anil Kumar AGM on behalf of CPIO on Video Conferencing from NIC Kolkatta, West Bengal The Appellant admits that Information has been provided on first 3 points. The Appellant has sought information about the people who undertook loans from the Bank. The Bank has claimed exemption from providing the information. The Bank holds information about its customers in a fiduciary relationship and the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e).
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice, - as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 30 September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved) Page 2 of 2