Central Information Commission
Mr. J S Gaba vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 28 May, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000829/19110
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000829
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. J.S.Gaba
Punjab & Sind Bank Staff Federation
2636- Hudson Line, GTB Nagar
Delhi- 110009
Respondent : Mr. S. K. Bahl
PIO & Chief Manager Punjab & Sind Bank Zonal Office III Nehru Place New Delhi- 110019 Third Party : Mr. S. S. Alag, CTO Punjab and Sind Bank Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi RTI application filled on : 19/09/2011 PIO replied : 20/10/2011 First appeal filed on : 19/11/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 07/12/2011.
Second Appeal received on : 13/03/2012 The Appellant had sought information regarding the subscription for federation diverted to some factious account NO. 5385 opened with B/O Asaf Ali road by some undesired elements with improper papers in connivance with the management.
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the PIO
1. Is it correct that we have been requesting ZM-III through our It is a matter of record and do not require various letters to club Code No. 40 with our parent Code No. any comments. 04 since long, last being dated 11/03/2011?
2. Is it not correct that ZM-III did not pay any heed to our Third party information, hence denied requests and continued with two codes i.e. 04 & 40 for our under section 8(1)(d) of the RTl Act, 2005. Federation?
3. Is it correct that ZM-III have changed the name of our Third party information, hence denied Federation under Code No. 40 from Punjab & Sind Bank under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Staff' Federation (Delhi) to All India Punjab & Sind Bank Matters also sub-Judice. Staff Federation (dac)?
4. Is it also correct that out of these two codes, name of Code Third party information, hence denied No. 40 has been changed without any requisition submitted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. by our Federation/without informing us in writing/without Matters also sub-Judice. seeking our opinion?
5. Is it correct that ZM-Ill has changed the name of our Third party information, hence denied Federation under Code No. 40 before clubbing with our under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
parent Code No. 04? Matters also sub-Judice.
Page 1 of 46. We solicit reasons for action of the ZM-III for changing the Third party information, hence denied name under Code No. 40 from Punjab & Sind Bank Staff under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Federation (Delhi) to All India Punjab & Sind Bank Staff Matters also sub-Judice. Federation (dac).
7. Whether this change in name under Code No. 40 has been Public authority not answerable to the effected by the ZM-l1I on his own or with the prior applicant, under the RTI ad, 2005. permission of H.O. Personnel Department (JR Cell) or HO. C.P.P. Department, who is only authorized to make changes in the salary software?
8. Who requested for change of the name under Code No. 40 Third party information, hence denied from PSB Staff Federation (Delhi) to All India PSB Staff under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Federation (dac)? Please specifically inform us the Matter is also sub-judice. Organization/union/lndividual's name who made the request for change
9. Which papers have been submitted for change of name for Third party information, hence denied our Federation under Code No. 40? Please arrange to send us under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. copies of each of the said papers. Matter is also sub-judice.
10. Who submitted the papers for change of name of our Third party information, hence denied Federation under Code No. 40 and on which date? Copies under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. may please be provided to us, Matter is also sub-judice.
11. Who received and accepted the papers for change of name of Third party information, hence denied our Federation under Code No. under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. 40 and at whose end decision for change of name was Matter is also sub-judice. proposed and taken?
12. Which authority issued instructions/directions to change the Third party information, hence denied name of our Federation under Code No. 40 from PSBSF under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. (Delhi) to AIPSBSF (dac) and who followed and executed the Matter is also sub-judice. directions?
13. Who are being considered as PresIdent & Secretary of the Third party information, hence denied Union under Code No. 40 as on date/since change of name of under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. the Union? Please be specific to inform us their names and Matter is also sub-judice. present place of posting.
14. Minutes of meeting/record for consideration of request and Third party information, hence denied issue of directions for change of name of our Federation under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. under Code No. 40 is being requestedlsought through this Matter is also sub-judice. letter under RTI Act 2005.
15 In which month and year change in the name of our Third party information, hence denied Federation under Code No, 40 has been proposed and under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
effected? Matter is also sub-judice.
16 Is it correct that subscription amount under Code No. 40 Third party information, hence denied
along with list of deducted members is being sent to some under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
other union? Matter is also sub-judice.
17. Who is being made beneficiary of the subscription amount Third party information, hence denied
after change in name under Code No. 40? under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Matter is also sub-judice.
18. Please inform us the Title of Account and Account Number Third party information, hence denied
and name of the Branch Office where it is being maintained. under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Matter is also sub-judice.
19. Who are operators of the Account? Please specify their names Third party information, hence denied with present place of posting. under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Matter is also sub-judice.
20. Whether subscription amount after change in name tinder Third party information, hence denied Code No. 40 has been got encashed? Please inform us the under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 2 of 4Cheque/Pay Order No,, Date of issue, Amount and Favouring. Matter is also sub-judice. Also please inform us the date of clearance of the ChequeIPay Order, as above.
21. Is it not correct that Zonal Manager-ITT has ignored the Record not. Traceable..
instructions as conveyed by HO Personnel Department (IR. Cell) vide their letter bearing No. IRC/4 1/2008 dated 19104/2008, contents of which were prepared and issued upon consideration of Hon'ble Court's Interim Order dated 14/02/2008, which is sub-ju dice?
22. Is it also correct that ever since formation of Punjab & Sind Third party information, hence denied Bank Staff Federation, Affiliated to B.F.F.I. only one Code under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. No. 04 was in circulation in salary package for our Matter is also sub-judice. Federation?
23. Who proposed and created Code No. 40? Under whose Third party information, hence denied directions, execution of this another code was done? Please under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. also inform us the date and year of its effectiveness and its Matter is also sub-judice. executants. Also please submit all the relevant documents upon which the directions/instructions were passed on and orders were executed.
24. Is it a practice adopted by ZM-III that whenever any member Matter of record.
of a Union submits his letter of request for change of a particular union, ZM-llI gives direction to his Salary Section to change the name of that Union instead of deleting the name of employee from that particular union?
Grounds for the First Appeal:
PIO refused to reply over most of the queries stating that matter is sub-judice. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
FAA ordered that as per section 2 (f), CPIO is not suppose to give any reasoning or justification whether some thing is correct or not untill and unless that will cover section 2 (f) & 2 (j).Since most of the information is sub-judice, CPIO have to consider the following
(i) The objections raised by the third party by claiming confidentiality in respect of the information sought for.
(U) Whether the information is being sought by the applicant in larger public interest or 10 wreak vendetta against the third party. In deciding that the profile of person seeking information and his credentials will have to be looked into, If the profile of the person seeking information, in light of other attending circumstances, leads to the construction that under the pretext of serving public interest, such person is aiming to settle personal score against the third party, it cannot be said that public interest warrants disclosure of the information solicited.
(iii) The PIO, while dealing with the information relating tn or supplied by the third party, nas to constantly bear in mind that the Act does not become a tool in hands of a busy body to settle a personal score.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
PIO didn't respond as per the order of FAA..
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 07 May 2012:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. M. P. Singh representing Mr. J.S.Gaba;Page 3 of 4
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Bahl, PIO & Chief Manager;
"The PIO claims that there is a third party and that there is another group of people who claim to represent the said federation. The other group has objected to disclosing the information to the appellant. The Commission points out that denial of information in RTI Act has to be justified as per the provisions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO has erred in not justifying the denial of information as per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission is giving an opportunity to the Third party to explain to the Commission how the information sought by the appellant is covered by the exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission points out that a matter being sub-judice cannot be a ground for exemption under RTI Act. The Commission adjourning the hearing to give an opportunity to the Third party to give its arguments how the information sought by the appellant is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Matter is adjourned to 28 May 2012 at 10.00AM. The Commission directs the Third Party, PIO and the Appellant to appear before the Commission on 28/05/2012 at 10.00AM to present their arguments as to how the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
Relevant Facts emerging during the Hearing on 28 May 2012:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. M. P. Singh representing Mr. J.S.Gaba;
Respondent: Mr. S. K. Bahl, PIO & Chief Manager;
Third Party: Mr. S. S. Alag;
The Commission asked the third party to explain to the Commission the exemption being claimed for denial of the information. The Third Party stated that there are two rival unions and a case is pending in the Court between them. They believe that providing the information to the appellant may be prejudicial to their case in the court and that the appellant do not have right to get the information. The Commission explained to the third party that as per section-11 read with Section 3 and Section 8 of the RTI Act denial of information would have to be justified as per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Right to information is a fundamental right of citizens which has been codified by the RTI Act and denial of information has to be justified in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act. Neither the third party nor the PIO has been able to justify the denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The third party now states that the information should be denied as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In the instant case the Appellant has sought information about a federation which is not an individual and hence cannot have personal information which would qualify for protection under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission also notes that the information has been given in the course of public activity and does appear to be of a nature which could be construed as invasion on the privacy of any one. In view of this the Commission does not find any merit in the claim for exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Since no sustainable claim has been made by the third party for denial of information the Commission rules that the PIO will have to provide the information to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 20 June 2012. 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 28 May 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 4 of 4