Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Rajasekaran M vs Indian Bank on 26 December, 2018

                             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 Nos.       CIC/IBANK/A/2017/159915,
                                            CIC/IBANK/A/2017/169722 &
                                            CIC/IBANK/A/2017/182868

Rajasekaran M                                           ... अपीलकता/Appellant


                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम


CPIO, Indian Bank,                                  ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Chennai.

Relevant dates emerging from the appeals:

RTI : 08-06-2017/05-07-    FA : 17-07-2017/17-08- SA : 29-08-2017/05-10-
2017/02-08-2017            2017/11-09-2017         2017/13-12-2017
CPIO : 05-07-2017/05-08-   FAO : 07-08-2017/14-09-
                                                   Hearing: 21-12-2018
2017/31-08-2017            2017/13-10-2017


                                  ORDER

1. Mr. Rajasekaran M filed three identical appeals in case nos. CIC/IBANK/ A/2017/159915, CIC/IBANK/A/2017/169722 and CIC/IBANK/A/ 2017/182868 in respect of three identical RTI applications dated 08-06-2017/05-07-2017/02-08- 2017. All these appeals are being clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Palappatti/ Paramathi Velur Branch seeking information on eight points pertaining to the educational loan applications and the demonetized notes received at the Palappatti/ Paramathi Velur branch of the Indian Bank, including, inter-alia, (i) the name and designation of staff members serving in the Palappatti/ Paramathi Velur branch, (ii) the residential addresses where the staff members of the Bank have been residing along with proof to this effect, (iii) the number of applications received for educational loan, cases sanctioned with loan, the number of cases rejected, the reasons for rejection and proof that rejection had been communicated to them, the quantum of loan sanctioned, the name and addresses of the beneficiaries to whom loans were sanctioned over the past three years, and (iv) after the demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs 1000 notes, the number of notes of above denominations deposited with the Bank by the public from 8th November to 30th December 2016, their names and addresses, and details of the individual deposits.

3. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that complete information has not been provided by the CPIO. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the information sought for and to take necessary legal action against the CPIO for not providing complete information.

Hearing:

4. The appellant, Mr. Rajasekaran attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent, Mr. K. Deepak Senthil, Senior Manager (Law), Indian Bank, Chennai attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5. The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO in response to his RTI application on point numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application. Further, he submitted that the respondent should provide him specific information on point numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application.

6. The respondent submitted that they can provide statistical information on point numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8. He also stated that information pertaining to the denomination-wise currencies issued to individuals, copies of the identity proofs submitted by them against each transaction cannot be shared with the appellant as the information sought is in nature of third party information held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and has no relationship with any public activity or interest. Moreover, the disclosure of third party information may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of their customers. Hence, they have denied this information by claiming exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Further, the respondent submitted that they can provide statistical information pertaining to the quantum of expenditure incurred by the Bank but information relating to the bills and vouchers is voluminous in nature and is not readily available with the CPIO in the manner as sought by the appellant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, they Page 3 of 5 have claimed the exemption from disclosure as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The respondent informed that the audited financial statement of the bank is available on their website, for which, he agreed to provide the relevant web-link to the appellant.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent should provide only the statistical information on point numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 to the appellant in response to the RTI application after severing information which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity or relates to commercial confidence, or personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(d), (e) or (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission agrees with the respondent that information on the bills and vouchers is voluminous in nature and furnishing the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide statistical information to the appellant on point numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 in response to his RTI application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission

8. With the above observations, the appeals are disposed of.

9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sudhir Bhargava (सुसुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूसूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 24.12.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Co:Customer Service Cell, RTI Desk, Corporate Office, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai-600014.

2. Rajasekaran M, Page 5 of 5