Central Information Commission
Vinayak Shripati Karad vs Bank Of Baroda on 14 November, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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 No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2021/119412
Mr. Vinayak Shripati Karad ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ...!ितवादी/Respondent
Bank of Baroda
RO-Aurangabad, Region Plot No. 8
Sec ECIDCO No. 5, Town Centre
Aurangabad, MH-431003
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 10-02-2021 FA : 01-03-2021 SA : 17-05-2021
CPIO : 20-02-2021 FAO : 19-03-2021 Hearing : 01-11-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Aurangabad. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 20-02-2021 had denied the information as sought by the appellant under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 01-03-2021 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 19-03-2021 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information Page 1 of 4 sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was represented through his representative who attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Regional (Head) attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The written submissions of the respondent are taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 10.02.2021. He stated that the respondent has wrongly denied the information.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 20.02.2021, they have informed the appellant that the information sought by him is personal information of third party and held by them in fiduciary capacity, hence, the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding salary withdrawn by Shri Pravin Shesherao Gambhire, etc. The Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant is personal information of third party and held by the respondent public authority in fiduciary capacity, hence, it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The information which is related to third party cannot be disclosed to the appellant under the RTI Act, as it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this context, the commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Saiyed. Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein in the context of exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Court had held that exemption provided under section 8 of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. The relevant observations are mentioned as under:
22......"Another very significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this provision, information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of Page 2 of 4 such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest. It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions. All information which has come to the notice of or on record of a person holding fiduciary relationship with another and but for such capacity, such information would not have been provided to that authority, would normally need to be protected and would not be open to disclosure keeping the higher standards of integrity and confidentiality of such relationship. Such exemption would be available to such authority or department."
23. "The expression 'public interest' has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression 'public interest' must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression 'public interest', like 'public purpose', is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its color from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]."
24."The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision."
8. The Commission is satisfied with the action/steps taken by the respondent in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant.
9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 3 of 411. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 07-11-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Bank of Baroda
RO-Aurangabad, Region Plot No. 8
Sec ECIDCO No. 5, Town Centre
Aurangabad, MH-431003
2. Mr. Vinayak Shripati Karad
Page 4 of 4