Central Information Commission
Shri Lalit Mohan Roy Chaudhary vs State Bank Of India on 16 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2008/00832 & 835-SM dated 22.06.2007
Right to Information Act-2005- Under Section (19)
Dated 16.03.2009
Appellant : Shri Lalit Mohan Roy Chaudhary
Respondent : State Bank of India
The Appellant is represented by S/Shri Devbrat Roy Chaudhary and Barun Kumar.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri Ajay Kumar Jha, Chief Manager
(ii) Shri Varun Kumar, Deputy Manager
The brief facts of both these cases are as under.
2. The Appellant has filed two different appeals against the orders of the first Appellate Authority and both the cases being on similar matter, we have clubbed both the cases together for hearing. The Appellant had requested the CPIO, in two different letters, both dated 22 June 2007, for information in respect of a steel trunk and a safe held in the respective branch in the name of one Chaudhury Krishna Bihari Roy. The CPIO, in his reply dated 29 June 2007, denied the information sought by merely referring to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and by holding that information had no relationship to any public activity. The Appellant, thereafter, approached the first Appellate Authority against the decision of the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority decided the appeals in two different orders, namely, one dated 20 August 2007 and the other dated 29 August 2007. In both the cases, he endorsed the decision of the CPIO and rejected the appeals. it is against those orders that the Appellant has now come before us in second appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant argued against the orders of the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority in denying the information. He submitted that he had a necessary relationship with the information sought as it was about a joint family property and to deny the information on the ground that the information was regarding a third party was not correct. He further submitted that the authority under which the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority had denied the information, namely, Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act did not apply in this case as the information sought was regarding the details of a joint property belonging to the family of the Appellant and, therefore, could not have been denied. The Respondent submitted that the information sought was about the details of certain deposits made by an account holder with whom the relationship of the Appellant was not clear as the Appellant had not produced any legal heir certificate from a competent court. After hearing both the parties and keeping in mind many such decisions of this Commission, we tend to agree with the contention of the Respondent that information sought in these cases was in the nature of commercial confidence the disclosure of which could adversely affect the competitive position of a third party. We also agree with the contention that the information sought did not have any relationship to any public activity or interest and that the disclosure of this information could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that individual. The reported death of the said third party individual is not relevant as even a deceased person has a right to privacy as contemplated in Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant informed that a dispute was pending before a competent court relating to the joint property including the two items about which he had been seeking information from the Respondent Bank. This has been held on several occasions by this Commission that if the information sought is the subject matter of a dispute before another competent court, such information should be obtained through that competent court. In this case also, if the information regarding the two items deposited by the said deceased person had any nexus to the joint family property under dispute, the information regarding these items can be obtained in the course of the adjudication in the competent court.
5. In view of the above, we are afraid we cannot give any relief to be Appellant. We, therefore, dispose off the appeals without any further orders.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) 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) Assistant Registrar