Central Information Commission
Shri. Osuri Devendra Phanikar vs Bank Of India on 11 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001391/SG/16784
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001391/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Shri Osuri Devendra Panikar
11-4-37, S.V.Nilayam,
Osuri Manison, 21st ward,
Peechupalem, Narsapur-534275
West Godavri District.
Respondent : Mr. K. T. Rao
Public Information officer & DGM, Bank of India, Zonal Office, 1st floor,D.No.28-2-48, Suryabagh, Dasapalla complex, Visakhapatnam-530020 RTI application filed on : 16/12/2010 PIO replied on : 22/12/10 First Appeal filed on : 18/01/2011 First Appellate Authority's order on : 02/04/11 Second Appeal received on : 16/05/11 Information Sought:
1. All the details of housing loans sanctioned by Narsapur Branch, West Godwari District, AP, for the last three years starting from 14/12/2007 to 15/12/2010.
2. Names of the beneficiaries/ followers.
3. Loan amount sanctioned for each beneficiary borrower.
4. Documents submitted by the beneficiaries/ borrowers.
5. Copies of estimates prepared by your Bank's official panel valued in all the housing loans.
6. Copies of legal opinions in the entire housing loans sanctioned purse.
Reply by PIO (CAPIO):
The application being an E mail which was not accompanied with an application fee was rejected by CAPIO.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The information provided by CPIO was misleading and incorrect.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The information requested was rejected under an influence of commercial confidence, relates to personal information and Appellant being a third party. Hence the disclosure of such information which would amount to invasion of the privacy of the individual which are falls under the exemptions clause under Section 8 (1)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information provided by The FAA is incorrect and unconvincing. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Vel, Law Officer on behalf of Mr. K. T. Rao, Public Information officer & DGM on video conference from NIC-Visakhapatnam Studio;
The Appellant ahs sought information about the transactions of the Bank with its customers. The PIO has refused to give this information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Commission recognizes that information about the customers of the Bank is held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
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. In the instant case no larger public interest has been demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)
(e) of the RTI Act.
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 11 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DE)