M Mohammed Razool vs Central Bank on 28 April, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

M Mohammed Razool vs Central Bank on 28 April, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 16.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 22.01.2018 and first appeal dated 28.03.2018:-

 Account statement (day to-day transactions) of the above savings bank account no.. 8490 from the date of opening of the account till 31.12.2017 may kindly be provided to me under Rule 4 (1) and Section 6 (1) of RTI Act at the earliest in order to produce the above details in the Hon'ble Family Court Madurai to defend my above court case during the nest date of hearing.

Page 1 of 4

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 22.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Central Bank of India, Ellis Nagar, Madurai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 25.01.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.03.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 20.04.2018.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 16.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 16.05.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 25.01.2018 denied the information under clause

(e) of sub section (1) of section 8 of the RTI Act. The FAA vide his order dated 20.04.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Ms.Nalini Mennakshi, Dy.Regional Manager and Shri Murli Krishnan, Sr.Manager(Law), Central Bank, Madurai attended the hearing through video conference. 5.1. The appellant while submitting his case inter alia submitted that he needed the details of the transactions made by his wife in relation to a Court case pending in the family court.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the reply given by the CPIO wherein the CPIO had claimed exemption under the provisions of Page 2 of 4 Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act stating that information sought was related to third party and held by the bank under fiduciary relationship.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has already been given by the respondent vide letter dated 07.02.2018. The appellant failed to bring out any public interest warranting disclosure of information of the third party. Moreover, the Courts have their own rules and procedure under which the Courts may summon any document, whatever is felt relevant and necessary. The Commission may not encourage the appellant to make RTI applications to use public authority or the documents in their possession as tools to settle their personal scores, especially when an alternative mechanism of procuring the documents is available. With these observations and directions, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date: 20.04.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA RAJA MUTHIAH MANDRAM, FIRST FLOOR, Dr. AMBEDKAR ROAD, MADURAI - 625 020 THE F.A.A, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, 48/49, MONTEITH ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600008 M MOHAMMAD RAZOOL Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission