Bhawna Rani vs Bank Of India on 5 June, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Bhawna Rani vs Bank Of India on 5 June, 2023

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.11.2020 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 25.08.2020 and first appeal dated 17.09.2020:-

 मेरा पित ी गुरदीप संह बंधक के ल - 2, ब क ऑफ़ इं िडया, शाखा छपराखेडा करनाल म काय रत था तथा उसका दनाक 06.06.2020 को उसके पद से िनलि बत कर दया है उसके बारे म मुझ को िन$िलिखत सूचना उपल(ध कराई जाये:-

( 1) ी गुरदीप संह बंधक के उपर *या आरोप लगाए गये है उन आरोप- क. स/यािपत फोटो ित उपल(ध कराई जाये| 2 ( ) ी गुरदीप संह बंधक को िजस आदेश के 2ारा िनलि बत कया गया है उस आदेश क.

स/यािपत फोटो ित उपल(ध कराई जाये| Page 1 of 4 ( 3) ी गुरदीप संह बंधक के उपर लगे आरोप- क. अपरािधक िशकायत कस पुिलस थाना म दज कराई गई है FIR नंबर, दनाक व् कस IPS क. धारा के अंतग त मुकदमा दज 8आ है उसक. सूचनाभी उपल(ध कराई जाये

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 25.08.2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Chandigarh.The CPIO vide letter dated 11.09.2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.09.2020. The First Appellate Authority(FAA) vide order dated 14.10.2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 13.11.2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated13.11.2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.09.2020 and the same is reproduced as under:-

"आपके 2ारा मांगी गईसूचना अ9य : कतो से संबंिधत है तथा :ि;गत जानकारी क. ेणी म आतीहै, जो सूचना का अिधकार अिधिनयम 2005 क. धारा 8(1) (j) और धारा 8(1)(e)के अनग त कटीकरण से मु; है | अत: आपके 2ारा मांगी गई जानकारी से इंकार है |"

The FAA vide order dated 14.10.2020concurred with the reply given by the CPIO:-

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Shashikant Prasad, CPIO, Bank of India, Chandigarh attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that she sought information regarding documents related to suspension of her husband Shri Gurdeep Singh. She stated that her husband had not been paying maintenance despite court order on the plea that he was under suspension. Therefore, the appellant sought aforesaid information to confirm as to whether Mr. Gurdeep Singh was under suspension or not. However, the respondent had not provided the information on the ground of third party.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that after receipt of the RTI application, they issued notice dated 01.09.2020 to third party i.e. Shri Gurdeep Page 2 of 4 Singh, under section 11 of the RTI Act and sought consent for providing the information to the appellant. In response to the notice, Shri Gurdeep Singh vide letter dated 09.09.2020 refused to give consent to disclose the information to the appellant. Therefore, they informed the appellant that information sought pertained to third party, held by the bank under fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letters dated 11.09.2020 and 14.10.2020. The respondent submitted that after receipt of RTI application they sought consent of third party i.e. Shri Gurdeep Singh under section 11 of the RTI Act however he (third party) had refused to share the information with the appellant. Accordingly reply was given to the appellant. The appellant failed to establish any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of information. It may not be out of place to mention that the court is not bereft of the power to call for the records from the bank, if necessary.That being so, there appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 05.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत#) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

THE CPIO :

BANK OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR , SCO -76-82, STAR HOUSE, SECTOR 31, CHANDIGARH - 160030 Page 3 of 4 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANK OF INDIA, 4TH FLOOR , SCO -76-82, STAR HOUSE, SECTOR 31, CHANDIGARH - 160030 MS. BHAWANA RANI Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission