Central Information Commission
K. Pothu Raju vs Canara Bank on 16 January, 2024
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/CANBK/A/2022/634872
K. Pothu Raju ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Madurai
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 12.03.2022 FA : 04.05.2022 SA : 27.06.2022
CPIO : 21.05.2022 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 11.01.2024
Date of Decision: 12.01.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.03.2022 seeking information regarding account no. ********5672 in the name of "the Ramakrishna Nagar colony Residents Welfare Association" on the following points:
(i) Is the account in operation or not?
(ii) If not from which date?
(iii) What is to be done to make it active now?
(iv) From the date of opening the account complete statement as on
1.03.2022.
Page 1 of 4
(v) The authorized signatory's details submitted proof of documents for operation of the account from the opening of account and whenever changes etc./ other related information.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.05.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"After perusing your application, we inform you that the authorized signatories in account of Ramakrishna Nagar colony residents welfare association (30882200008672) and RTI applicant differs, as these details would fall under commercial confidence as per Sec.8(1)(d) and held under fiduciary relationship under Sec.8(1)(e) of RTI act. Further, it is also a third- party information under Sec.8(1)G) of RTI act. Under Sec.13 of Banking companies Act, 1970, Bankers have to maintain secrecy of the information of the customer Further there was no public interest in this matter. Hence, we are unable to furnish the information regarding account details of The Ramakrishna Nagar colony residents welfare association (30882200008672)"
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.05.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading.
4. Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 27.06.2022.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Niranjana S.M, Divisional Manager attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that an improper reply was furnished by the respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He further submitted that the association was not working properly therefore, he sought the information and being a member of the Page 2 of 4 society, the account details should be provided to him. He pleaded that the information sought is not related to a third party, as it is a common association information. He requested the Commission to direct the respondent to invoke section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and provide the information.
7. During the course of hearing, the respondent submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 21.05.2022. He stated that the information sought related to the third party, the disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Therefore, they expressed their inability to provide the information to the appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had denied the information under the provisions of the Section 8 (1) (d), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. During the course of the hearing, the appellant pressed that the information sought is not related to a third party (individual) rather a common association (institute) and should be provided to him. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to invoke section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and furnish a reply to the appellant based on the reply provided by the third-party association within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the response from the third party under the intimation to the Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 12.01.2024
Page 3 of 4
Authenticated true copy
Suman Bala (सुमन बाला)
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Canara Bank, DM & Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Regional Office:
Hyderabad - III (Management Information Planning Development Cell, 6-2-915, HMWSSB Building, West Black - II Floor, Khairatabad Hyderabad - 500004
2. K. Pothu Raju Page 4 of 4