Central Information Commission
Mr.Ritesh Kumar vs Bank Of India on 16 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003060/16861
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003060
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ritesh Kumar
Mandal Nagar, Ward No. 05
Janki Sthan, Sitamarhi
Respondent : Mr. U. N. Pandey
Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager Bank of India Regional Office Mujjaffarpur Region Pankaj Market, Saraiyaganj Mujjaffarpur - 842001 Bihar RTI application filed on : 12/07/2011 PIO replied : 04/10/2011 First appeal filed on : 29/08/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 12/09/2011 Second Appeal received on : 01/11/2011 Information Sought:
Kindly attested the account statement of Bal Vikas Par. Pada. (CDPO), Dumra Sadar Seetamarhi, from
2.1.2009 to 12.7.2011 and inform me.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The sought information comes under the Section 8(j) of the RTI Act and can not be disclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO as the sough information is regarding Govt. Scheme.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Satisfy with the reply of PIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Aggrieved by the order of the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ritesh Kumar on video conference from NIC-Sitamarhi Studio; Respondent: Mr. U. N. Pandey, Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager on video conference from NIC-
Muzaffarpur Studio;
The Appellant has sought the accounts statement of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO). The PIO has refused to give the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Whereas the Commission accepts that information about the account and transactions of a customer with the bank are held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity and therefore exempt under Section Page 1 of 2 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, in the instant case the Appellant is seeking information about the Bank Account of a Scheme under which money is provided for Child Welfare and other such welfare schemes. Given the fact that Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act expects information of all concessions and subsidies to be made public suo-moto, the Commission rules that disclosing the information sought by the Appellant would serve the larger public interest. In view of this though the Commission agrees that the information of the customer is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity and is exempt. However, the Commission decides that as per the provisions of Section 8(2) of the RTI Act if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest information should be provided. In the instant case the Commission concludes that there is a larger public interest in disclosure of the Accounts Statement since this is government money which is supposed to be channelized only for welfare schemes. It is important that citizens have complete details of such accounts so that it can act as a curb on arbitrariness and corruption.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the Bank Statements to the Appellant before 05 February 2012.
This decision is announced in open chamber. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 January 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) Page 2 of 2