Central Information Commission
Mr.Rajesh Kohli vs State Bank Of India on 18 November, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000441
Dated, the 18 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Rajesh Kohli
Respondent : State Bank of India, New Delhi
s This matter came up for hearing on 15.10.2010 pursuant to Commission's notices dated 24.09.2010 and 08.10.2010. Appellant was present in person, while the respondents were represented by Shri Anil Kumar Baheti, Manager (Law), Shri S.L. Garg, Manager (Law) and Shri N.K.Uprete, Chief Manager (Admn).
2. Appellant's RTIapplication dated 16.01.2010 was for disclosure of information relating to a Savings Bank Account No.1172 (10080021067) of a thirdparty, viz. the Administrators of the Estate of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli, i.e. Smt.Veena Eagleton, Smt.Reeta Khosla and Smt.Jyoti Dhingra.
3. Appellant's plea for disclosure of the thirdparty account was that he was a legalheir of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli in respect of whose will the Court of the Additional District Judge Chandigarh had granted a probate in 2002.
4. CPIO, through his reply dated 18.01.2010, informed appellant that the requested thirdparty information could be transmitted to him provided he submitted to the Bank at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, a certified copy of his Succession Certificate or a No Objection Certificate from all legalheirs of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli. He was further advised that he might submit CIC_AT_A_2010_000441_M_45896.doc Page 1 of 4 all other documents to establish his claim to access the thirdparty information, i.e. the bank account.
5. Appellate Authority, in his order dated 29.03.2010, cited Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) to decline disclosure of the information which he held to be personal to the thirdparty.
6. Appellate Authority also suggested that it was open to the appellant to approach the appropriate Court for the information as now demanded by him.
7. Appellant, in his secondappeal, has stated that he has come through the RTI to seek the information because, according to him, this was a more speedy process than approaching the law Court. It is also his case that if the information was not provided to him, he might suffer huge financial losses.
8. Narrating the sequence of events, appellant stated that appellant's mother Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli passed away in 1993. The Court of Shri Lakhbir Singh, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh probated the will of late Smt.Kohli and appointed appellant's sisters as administrators of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli's properties. Court instructed the sisters to make a complete and true inventory of the property of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli.
9. The Administrators the sisters of the appellant opened a bank account at State Bank of India, Haryana Civil Secretariat Branch, Chandigarh. All transactions in that account were liable to be disclosed to the ADJ Court, Chandigarh.
10. Appellant claims that his sisters, in their role as administrators, failed to carryout the duties and the responsibilities cast on them by the Court. At a later date, however, they filed the inventory of the property CIC_AT_A_2010_000441_M_45896.doc Page 2 of 4 before the Court, but did not disclose the details of the transactions in the bank account opened by them as Administrators of the property.
11. Appellant's sisters ― the thirdparties in this case ― admit that appellant is a 25% shareholder in late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli's properties.
12. Appellant has already approached ADJ Court, Chandigarh in the matter of the failure of the administrators his sisters in filing the details of the administrators' account before the Court.
13. It is the appellant's argument that the Administrators' account could not be said to be the personal account of his sisters. It was an account based upon a probate granted by an appropriate court, whose order was in rem. Apart from the above, the appellant as a shareholder of the property of late Smt.Kohli was entitled to access the account which related to his late mother's property.
14. It is quite obvious from the order, which CPIO has given, that the Bank has no objection to allow the appellant access to the Administrators' account provided he, through verifiable documents, proved to the Bank his rights as a legalheir of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli. Appellant's reluctance to do so is rather intriguing in the face of his claim that he was a legalheir of Smt.Kohli.
15. It was pointed out by the representatives of the SBI during hearing that the Bank was not a party to the court proceedings, about which the appellant has made a mention. There was no specific order from the Court to the Bank to allow the appellant access into the thirdparty administrators' bank account. As such, they could not, on their own and on the basis of a onesided submission of the appellant, allow him access into an account opened by the administrators of late Smt.Vidya Rani Kohli's properties.
CIC_AT_A_2010_000441_M_45896.doc Page 3 of 4
16. I find myself entirely in agreement with the respondents that appellant's narration of his claims notwithstanding, there was nothing on the basis of which the respondents could decide in favour of allowing the appellant access into the account opened by his sisters as administrators of Smt.Kohli's properties. Appellant is strangely reluctant to properly prove his claim to access the account on the basis of his being an acknowledged legalheir to Smt.Kohli ― appellant's late mother.
17. This Commission has consistently held that an account opened by a party/customer with a Bank was an exclusive transaction between the Bank and the customer. It cannot be authorized to be accessed by a thirdparty unless that thirdparty satisfies the Bank about his bonafides to access the account. RTI Act Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) bar disclosure of this variety of information. Nothing which the appellant has done visà vis the Bank proves his bonafides. Mere fact that the court was seized of this matter was not enough for the Bank to decide in his favour.
18. In view of the above, I am unable to allow this appeal. Closed.
19. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER CIC_AT_A_2010_000441_M_45896.doc Page 4 of 4