Central Information Commission
M Mohammad Razool vs Indian Overseas Bank on 28 April, 2020
Author: Suresh Chandra
Bench: Suresh Chandra
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/IOVBK/A/2018/131579
M Mohammad Razool ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office, Madurai. ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 22.01.2018 FA : 28.03.2018 SA : 15.05.2018
CPIO : 07.02.2018
FAO : 03.04.2018 Hearing : 18.03.2020
ORDER
(20.04.2020)
1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 15.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.01.2018 and first appeal dated 28.03.2018:-
Page 1 of 4 Account statement (day to-day transactions) of the above savings bank account no.. 8490 from the date of opening of the account till 31.12.2017 may kindly be provided to me under Rule 4 (1) and Section 6 (1) of RTI Act at the earliest in order to produce the above details in the Hon'ble Family Court Madurai to defend my above court case during the nest date of hearing.
2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Overseas Bank, Chadragandhi Nagar, Madurai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 07.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 03.04.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 15.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.
3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 15.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 07.02.2018 denied the information under clause (e) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 03.04.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.Page 2 of 4
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Saroj Kumar Panda, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Madurai attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The appellant while submitting his case inter alia submitted that he needed the details of the transactions made by his wife in relation to a Court case pending in the family court.
5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the reply given by the CPIO wherein the CPIO had claimed exemption under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act stating that information sought was related to third party and held by the bank under fiduciary relationship. The CPIO while denying the information relied on certain pronouncements of the Commission i.e. File no. No.CIC/MP/A/2015/001583 in matter between Shri Sandeep Bisht vs Punjab National Bank; File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/001842 between Shri M.A. Pookoya v. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank and No.CIC/SH/A/2015/001023 between Shri A. N.J. Porinchu v. CPIO, Kerala Gramin Bank.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given by the respondent vide letter dated 07.02.2018. The appellant failed to bring out any public interest warranting disclosure of information of the third party. Moreover, the Courts have their own rules and procedure under which the Courts may summon any document, whatever is felt relevant and necessary. The Commission may not encourage the appellant to make RTI applications to use public authority or the documents in their possession as tools Page 3 of 4 to settle their personal scores, especially when an alternative mechanism of procuring the documents is available. With these observations and directions, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 20.04.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Regional Office Madurai, Plot No. 40, Eighty Feet Road, Arignar Anna Nagar Madurai - 625 020 THE F.A.A, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.No. 3765, 763, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 M MOHAMMAD RAZOOL Page 4 of 4