Central Information Commission
Mrp Subramanyam vs Andhra Bank on 22 March, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000022
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22nd March 2016
Date of decision : 22nd March 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri P. Subramanyam,
138, 4th Cross, 3rd Main, Ramanjaneya
Nagar, Bangalore 560061
Name of the Public : Central Public Information Officer,
Authority/Respondent Andhra Bank,
Zonal Office, Raja Rangayyappa, Vijaywada 520001 RTI Application filed on : 18/10/2014 CPIO replied on : 29/10/2014 First Appeal filed on : 12/11/2014 First Appellate Authority order on : 25/11/2014 2nd Appeal received on : 24/12/2014 The Appellant was not present.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Amit Kumar Sharan, Senior Manager (Law) was present at the NIC Studio, Krishna District. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal CIC/SH/A/2015/000022 This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information concerning certain transactions in the account of one Shri R. Babu Rao, came up today. The information was denied by the CPIO under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act and his decision was upheld by the FAA, who also claimed exemption from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d).
2. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information. The Appellant was not present in spite of a written notice having been sent to him. In his RTI application, he had stated that the daughter of Shri R. Babu Rao had filed a "fake dowry"
complaint against him and his family members. In his appeal to the Commission, he stated that Shri R. Babu Rao had alleged in the court concerned that he had paid a dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Appellant. The Appellant had further stated that the passbook of Shri Rao's account was a court record and, therefore, entries in it were also a matter of public record.
3. Having considered the records and the submissions of both the parties, we note that the bank holds the information concerning the account of its customer in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, in the absence of a finding of larger public interest. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest that would warrant breach of the bank's fiduciary relationship with its customer. His personal dispute with Shri R. Babu Rao cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
4. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) in this case.
CIC/SH/A/2015/000022
5. With the above observations, 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 CIC/SH/A/2015/000022