Central Information Commission
N Yadavan vs State Bank Of India on 7 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2021/154247
Mr N Yadavan ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office-3
Ambattur (14754), Chennai North Zone
No. 54, North Phase, SIDCO Industrial Estate
Ambattur, Chennai-600050
Date of Hearing : 05/07/2023
Date of Decision : 05/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21/09/2021
CPIO replied on : 12/11/2021
First appeal filed on : 12/11/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 29/11/2021
Second Appeal dated : 15/12/2021
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2021 seeking the following information:-
1. Transaction detail of corpus fund held in your bank by the Newry Celestial Apartment owners/Residents welfare association (NCAO/RWA) since its deposit.
2. Number of accounts held and the particulars including date of opening and closing,
3. Income tax deducted on the above accounts.
4. Particulars of TDS till this date.
5. Details of withdrawal of money from the fixed deposit of corpus fund without the approval of all the owners.
6. Date of Intimation regarding Injunction order of the Court by the association.
7. Reasons and Rules under which a manager of the branch can close an account without the consent of the A/c holder.
8. Rules under which withdrawal ream corpus fund is permitted overriding byelaws of the association.
9. Date of submission of byelaws of the association to the bank.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.11.2021 stating as under:-
Query 01: Transaction details of the Accounts held in your bank by the Newry Celestial Apartment owners/Residents welfare association, Regn.No.476/18, (NCAO/RWA) since its deposit.
Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 02: Number of accounts held and the particulars including date of opening and closing.2
Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 03: Income tax deducted on the above accounts. Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 04: Particulars of TDS till this date.
Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 05: Details of withdraw! of money from the fixed deposit of corpus fund without the approved of all the owners.
Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 06: Date of Intimation regarding Injunction order of the Court by the Association.
Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
Query 07: Reasons and Rules under which a manager of the branch can close an account without the consent of the A/c holder.
Reply: The accounts closure is normally done based on Account Holder's request. Also, when bane receives orders from Statutory/Govt. authorities for closure. It may do so with or without information to the Account Holder Query 08: Rules under which withdrawal from corpus fund is permitted overriding byelaws of the association.
Reply: Information sought is not in our domain/area of operations.
Query 09: Date of submission of byelaws of the association to the bank. Reply: As per Section 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 we are unable to provide information to you.
We wish to inform you that as per our Law Department Opinion, NRI is not covered under (RTI Act 2005 hence information can not be provided under this Act.3
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.11.2021. The FAA order dated 29.11.2021 is as under:-
I have dispassionately examined the application and the appeal of the appellant. I have also called for other relevant details in this regard. On a careful examination of all the issues involved. It is observed that, the CPIO has furnished suitable reply/available information to the query as raised by the appellant. Hence, I concur with the view of the CPIO and no further intervention of Appellate Authority is necessary in this matter.
The appeal is thus disposed of and I pass the Order accordingly.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Ms. Rajalakshami Kayanasundaram, AGM & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 12.11.2021, they have informed the Appellant that the information sought by the Appellant is personal information of third party, which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Respondent submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
The Respondent, during the hearing, further submitted that the Appellant has not submitted any document w.r.t his ownership of flat in the said association, therefore, the information cannot be provided to him.
Decision:
The Commission having heard the Respondent observes that the fact that the Appellant is one of the owners in the averred Association, has a right to know the information sought vide RTI application. Now, based on a perusal of the facts on 4 record while addressing the applicability of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, relies on certain observations of a Division Bench of the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2016/001091-BJ-Final dated 05.01.2018 as under:
"The Commission took note of the issue regarding the "personal information" held by an individual in its personal capacity and the personal information held by the entities/corporations/trusts in their private capacity. In this context, a reference was drawn on the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in Naresh Trehan vs. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.( 2015) 216 DLT 156 wherein it was held:
'20. It has been contended by the petitioners that the expression "personal information" must also extend to information relating to corporate entities. Inasmuch as they may also fall within the definition of expression "person" under the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as under the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, I am unable to accept this contention for the reason that the expression "personal information" as used in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Act has to be read in the context of information relating to an individual. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would indicate that the expression "personal information" is linked with "invasion of privacy of the individual". The use of the word "the" before the word "individual" immediately links the same with the expression "personal information".
21. Black's law dictionary, sixth edition, inter alia, defines the word "personal" as under:- "The word "personal" means appertaining to the person; belonging to an individual; limited to the person; having the nature or partaking of the qualities of human beings, or of movable property."
22. A perusal of the above definition also indicates that the ordinary usage of the word "personal" is in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. The U.S. Supreme Court has also interpreted the expression "personal" to be used in the context of an individual human being and not a corporate entity. In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc: 2011 US LEXIS 1899 the US Supreme Court considered the meaning of the expression "personal privacy" in the context of the Freedom of Information Act, which required Federal Agencies to 5 make certain records and documents publically available on request. Such disclosure was exempt if the records "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". The U.S. Supreme Court held that the expression "Personal" used in the aforesaid context could not be extended to corporations because the word "personal"
ordinarily refers to individuals. The Court held that the expression "personal" must be given its ordinary meaning. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under: "Person" is a defined term in the statute;
"personal" is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically "give the phrase its ordinary meaning," [Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S., 559 U.S. 133, 130 S. Ct. 1265, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1, 8 (2010)]. "Personal" ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word "personal" to describe them. Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that's personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not. In fact, we often use the word "personal" to mean precisely the opposite of business related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
23. In my view, the aforesaid red reasoning would also be applicable to the expression "personal" used in Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The expression 'individual' must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely held undertaking which are in substance alter egos of their shareholders. However, the expression individual cannot be used as a synonym for the expression 'person'. Under the General Clauses Act, 1897 a person is defined to "include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not". Thus, 6 whereas a person would include an individual as well as incorporated entities and artificial persons, the expression 'individual' cannot be interpreted to include such entities. The context in which, the expression "personal information" is used would also exclude it application to large widely held corporations. While, confidential information of a corporation is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) of the Act, there is no scope to exclude other information relating to such corporations under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act as the concept of a personal information cannot in ordinary language be understood to mean information pertaining to a public corporation."
Further, in a recent case involving the similar factual matrix vide File No. CIC/DGITS/A/2021/604597, this bench made the following observation inter alia which is found relevant here:
"Similarly, it is also clarified that the Commission is not going into the merits of any argument of larger public interest touted by the Appellant in the records and the arguments of the Appellant or rebuttal of the Association about the functioning of the association, veracity of its day-to-day activities; finances, audit status whatsoever are extraneous considerations in the facts of the instant case. For further clarity, reference of 'public good' mentioned in one of the dicta (Rajendra Vasantlal Shah vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. AIR 2011 Guj 70) relied upon in the division bench decision (supra) of the Commission is only for the purpose of adding perspective in the instant matter as it relates to a resident seeking the income tax records of the 'association' of his own residential society. In other words, the only take away from the aspect of 'public good' in the instant case is that the members of the averred association should least of all have access to the information of the association."
Adverting to the foregoing discussion, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that there is no invasion of privacy of any individual in the disclosure of the information sought for in the instant RTI Application, similarly, there is no fiduciary relationship between the association and the Respondent office, therefore the invocation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the CPIO is rejected in the matter.
Having observed as above, the Commission directs the Appellant to submit relevant document w.r.t his ownership of the flat in the said association with the 7 Respondent Public Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The CPIO in turn to revisit the RTI Application and provide the available information as sought for therein to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the documents. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO immediately thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 8