Central Information Commission
R. Vijaya Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 23 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/605347
R Vijay Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank of India,
Hyderabad ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 08.11.2023 FA : 22.12.2023 SA : 08.02.2024
CPIO : 20.11.2023 FAO : Not on record Hearing : 20.05.2025
Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:
1. One car of Maruti-Suzuki make, DZire variant was financed by you on 04.02.2021 to the following person as per the records available with the RTA, Khammam Mr. Krishna Bhukya, H.No.1-63, Rupla Thanda, Manikyaram, Singareni, Khammam (Rural) Mandal, Khammam District.
The car was assigned with a Temporary Registration Number TS08CATR4524 on purchase from M/s Kalyani Motors, LB Nagar. The car was registered with Page 1 of 5 the Regional Transport Authority, Khammam and RTA, Khammam allotted a permanent number bearing TS04FC9076.
2. The car was used for criminal activities like kidnapping certain persons, who were engaged on some important project works of the Central Government, and continued to resort to further criminal acts.
3. As the car was financed by you, I request you to furnish the following information, duly certified, pertaining to your borrower, so as to approach appropriate authority for registering criminal cases, seizure of the vehicle and further processes in CC No.156 of 2021 in Yellandu Court, CRLP No. 6473 of 2021 in the Hight Court of Telangana and the cases with Human Rights Commissions.
(i) Profession of the borrower and designation
(ii) Residence Addresses (Local and Non-Local) recorded
(iii) Office Address of the borrower
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) As the applicant is seeking third party information, Bank ought to maintain secrecy and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 as the Bank holds the same in fiduciary capacity and the same being personal information is exempted from disclosure.
(ii) As the applicant is seeking third party information, Bank ought to maintain secrecy and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 as the Bank holds the same in fiduciary capacity and the same being personal information is exempted from disclosure.
(iii) As the applicant is seeking third party information, Bank ought to maintain secrecy and the same is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 Page 2 of 5 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005 as the Bank holds the same in fiduciary capacity and the same being personal information is exempted from disclosure.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.12.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
4. Aggrieved with the non- receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 08.02.2024.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Padmaja Rani, Regional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant submitted that he had sought profession, address and designation of the owner of the car who used it for criminal activity but the same had been denied as third-party information.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Moreover, the bank held the information under fiduciary capacity. Therefore, exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act has been sought.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated 20.11.2023. The perusal of records further reveals that the appellant has sought for the personal information of third party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Hence, the CPIO correctly denied the information under Section 8(1)
(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of Page 3 of 5 RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC
794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
9. In view of the above and in the absence of the larger public interest, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 23.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Page 4 of 5 Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO State Bank Of India, CPIO, Alkapuri-Branch, V. D. Prasada Rao Memorial School Building, Road No.1, Alkapuri, Hyderabd -500102
2. The CPIO "State Bank Of India, CPIO, Premises & Estate Department, 3rd Floor, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana-500095 3 R Vijay Kumar Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)