Central Information Commission
Virender Singh vs State Bank Of India on 7 April, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायतसं या / Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2020/119091
Mr. Virender Singh ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ितवादी/Respondent
... ितवादी
State Bank of India
RBO, Hotel Shangri-LA
Delhi Bye Pass Road, Rohtak
Haryana-124001
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
RTI : 26-12-2019 FA : 29-02-2020 SA : 13-07-2020
13
CPIO : 29-01-2020 FAO : 30-03-2020 Hearing: 05-04-2022
05
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, Rohtak, Haryana. The complainant seeking eeking information is as under:-
under:Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 29-01-2020 had denied the information as sought by the applicant under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the applicant has filed first appeal dated 29-02-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide its order dated 30-03- 2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. The complainant has 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 complainant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Somnath, Representative of CPIO/ Chief Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 19.10.2020 and 31.10.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the then CPIO and submitted that vide their letter dated 29.01.2020, they have informed the applicant that the information sought pertains to third party and hence it cannot be provided under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the applicant has sought certified copies of No Dues Certificates from PACS Bhana Brahmana or other banks demanded by the respondent bank before the loan sanctioned and other queries related thereto. That the respondent has denied the information sought under section 8 (1) (d) of RTI Act. That the respondent has wrongly invoked the relevant provision of the RTI Act without application of mind while denying information sought to the applicant. The Commission is of the opinion that the respondent taking embrace of exemption recklessly and non-meticulously in order to avoid giving a clear reply to the applicant. Therefore, the conduct of the then CPIO is not satisfactory and a strong warning is hereby issued to the then CPIO to be more meticulous in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act.
Page 2 of 57. Moreover, as the applicant is seeking No Dues Certificates demanded by the respondent bank from the concerned person, such information is related to third party personal information and also held by the public authority in its fiduciary capacity, therefore the same cannot be provided to the applicant. That the disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (j) and section 8 (1)
(e) of RTI Act, 2005 as the applicant neither enclosed any authority letter authorizing him to seek such information nor shown any larger public interest warranting disclosure of information. In this regard, 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. The 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 inChief 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 Page 3 of 5 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.
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...."
9. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the respondent has rightly denied the information sought in the instant RTI Application and their reply dated 29.01.2020 is in order. Prima facie, the adequacy of information cannot be adjudicated by the Commission while examining the complaint and there is no malafide intention of obstructing the information, hence no action warranted under section 20 of the RTI Act.
10. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 05-04-2022
Page 4 of 5
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
RBO, Hotel Shangri-LA
Delhi Bye Pass Road, Rohtak
Haryana-124001
2. Mr. Virender Singh
Page 5 of 5