Central Information Commission
Ashok Kumar Jaiswal vs State Bank Of India on 17 June, 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/2020/133216
Mr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal िशकायतकता /Complainant
...िशकायतकता
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ितवादी/Respondent
... ितवादी
State Bank of India
RBO, FIMM (CODE No. 63117)
4 Kutchery Road, Allahabad, UP
UP-211002
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 04-08-2020 FA : 15-09-2020 Complaint : 27-10-2020
CPIO : 16-09-2020 FAO : 12-10-2020 Hearing : 13-06-2022
13
ORDER
1. The applicant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Pradesh. The applicant seeking eeking information is as under:-
under:Page 1 of 6
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 16 16-09-2020 2020 had denied the information as sought by the applicant under section 8(1) (e) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied Page 2 of 6 with the same, the applicant has filed first appeal dated 15-09-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA has directed the CPIO to provide a copy of their reply to the applicant. He has filed a complaint before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The complainant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Sachidanand Tiwari, CPIO/ Chief Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The complainant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 04.08.2020.
6. The respondent reiterated the reply given by the then CPIO and FAA and submitted that the information sought could not be provided to the applicant being related to third party personal information. The disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8(1) (e) & 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the applicant has sought information regarding all the complaints filed by Shri Anuj Kumar Singh (Branch Manager), O/o SBI, Kaurav, Prayagraj and other queries related thereto. The respondent has already denied the desired information under relevant provisions of RTI Act. The Commission is of the opinion that the information sought by the applicant is related to the third party personal information and is also held by the Commission in its fiduciary capacity. The disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) & 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
8. In the context of non-disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Page 3 of 6 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."
9. 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 in Chief 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 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 Page 4 of 6 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...."
10. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that a suitable reply has already been provided by the respondent. 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.
11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 13-06-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 5 of 6
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
RBO, FIMM (CODE No. 63117)
4 Kutchery Road, Allahabad, UP-211002
2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal
Page 6 of 6