Central Information Commission
Shrisushil Malik vs Central Bank on 27 March, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000431/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 27th March 2014
Date of decision : 27th March 2014
Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sushil Malik,
General Secretary, Multani Dhanda
Residents Welfare Society (Regd.), 821617,
Multani Dhanda, Arakashan Road, Pahar
Ganj, New Delhi 110055
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Central Bank of India, Zonal Office Delhi,
Post Box No. 7007, Link House, 3, Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Ujjwal Narayan, Manager was present in
person.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 20.12.2011 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on four points. The CPIO denied the information on the ground that the RTI Application had been filed on behalf of a society and not by an individual citizen. Not satisfied with the replies of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in 2nd Appeal.
2. We heard the submissions of the Appellant and the Respondents. With reference to submission of the Respondents regarding filing of the RTI Application by a Society/Association, we note that this issue was examined at some length in the Commission's Order No. CIC/AD/A/2009/001462 dated 18.11.2009. The Respondents in that case had contended that the Appellant had sought information on behalf of an Association. In the above mentioned order dated 18.11.2009, a number of decisions of the Commission were cited to arrive at a decision on the above contention of the Respondents. Having examined the previous decisions of the Commission, it was stated in the order dated 18.11.2009: "Detailed study of the aforementioned cases thus reveals that the opinion is divided on whether an association of persons is to be considered as "citizen" as understood and defined under the RTI Act 2005 or not. However the one constant position in all the cases where information has been denied on the ground that the information has not been sought by a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005, is that the signatories have been different individuals at different levels of the same case. Also in some cases, the name of the signatory has not even been clearly specified. In such cases the inference is obvious that the signatory is a mere representative of the Firm/Association and not seeking information in his/her individual capacity. The position is completely the opposite in the instant case, where the Appellant is the same individual who has duly signed the RTI application as also the Appeals and pursued the case in his individual capacity at all levels."
Based on the above observation, the Commission had directed the Respondents to disclose the information.
3. It is noted that in the instant case, Shri Sushil Malik, General Secretary of the Multani Dhanda Residents Welfare Society has followed up the Application at all stages. His name is clearly identified on the Application and First Appeal etc. Accordingly, the contention of the Respondents that he filed the Application in his capacity as General Secretary of the Multani Dhanda Residents Welfare Society cannot become the ground for rejection of the RTI Application.
4. Going over the RTI Application, we note that query No. 2 seeks the opinion of the Respondents on an issue and does not fall within the ambit of `information' as defined in Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Query No. 4 seeks information regarding accounts of deceased account holders. This information cannot be revealed by the Respondents in the light of Sections 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to respond to queries no. 1 and 3 of the RTI Application, based on available records, within thirty days from the receipt of this Order, under intimation to the Commission.
5. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar