Central Information Commission
Sandeep Singh Bisht vs Punjab National Bank on 17 February, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001583
Appellant : Shri Sandeep Bisht, Dehradun
Public Authority : Punjab National Bank, Dehradun
Date of Hearing : January 9, 2017
Date of Decision : February 7, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Not present.
Respondent : Shri Mukesh Anand, Dy Circle Head - through VC
RTI application : 14.02.2015
CPIO's reply : NA
First appeal : 08.04.2015
FAA's order : NA
Second appeal : 07.07.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Sandeep Bisht, the appellant, sought information with reference to Ms Poonam Bisht's account desiring to know the loans taken by her along with the years during which these were taken; the reasons for taking loan; the amount of loan; and the name of the guarantor, etc through four points.
2. Not having received any reply, the appellant approached the first appellate authority asking for the information sought while mentioning that he was giving a certificate of his being the brother of the account holder and wanted the information regarding the year in which loan was taken, the amount of loan and whether settled or not. The FAA does not appear to have adjudicated in the matter. Therefore, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him.
4. The respondents stated that they had provided a clear response to the four points of the RTI application intimating the appellant that he had no legal connection with the information being sought. Therefore, it could not be provided to him. The Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, section 13(1) also does not favour providing such information pertaining to third party. The appellant was not present to point out any shortcoming in the decision.
5. The Commission observes that the information being sought was the personal information of the third party and could not be provided as per section 13(1) of the above Act but was also exempt u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act as it is third party information and held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary capacity. The Commission, therefore, upholds the CPIO's order. The Commission, however, finds that the FAA had not adjudicated the first appeal and cautions him for this negligence. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Punjab National Bank Punjab National Bank RTI Cell, Circle Office RTI Cell, Circle Office 1, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun 1, Paltan Bazar, Dehradun Shri Sandeep Bisht 10, Saiyyad Mohalla Chakrota Road Dehrarun