Central Information Commission
Shri. Madhu Dunichand Sabhanani vs United Commercial Bank (Uco) on 11 October, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001384/SG/15124
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001384/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Madhu Dunichand Sabhnani,
112/1/1, Radhakrishna Colony,
Nadhenagar, Kalewadi,
Pune-411017
Respondent : Mr. S. C. Jain
PIO & AGM UCO Bank, Law Department, Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 RTI application filed on : 21/02/2011 PIO replied on : 24/02/2011 First Appeal filed on : 14/03/2011 First Appellate Authority order on : 21/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 11/05/2011 Q.No Query Reply of PIO
1. Please provide the information and documents relating to Concerned PIO replied that sanctioning of loan to Shri Sharad Yashwant Kokne & others.e. the information sought Shri. Bharat Yashwant Kokne, Sanjay Yashwant Kokne ,Alka relates to third party Chandra Shekher Shedge. account holder and 2 Please provide the information about the loan sanctioned and disclosure of the same payment done to Shri Sharad Yashwant Kokne. would affect confidentially 3 Please provide the information about the name of guaranters of the Bank. Since it is relating to above loan. exempted under section 4 Please provide the copy of affidavits produced for sanctioned and 8(d) of the captioned above said loan. Act ,we are not in position 5 Please provide the certified copy of property mortgaged. to furnish the same to you. 6 Please provide all other documents relating to above said loan available with the bank.
7 Please provide the information on outstanding balance.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory. Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA ordered that the subject information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(e) of RTI Act,2005. Hence, I concur with the views of PIO that the information sought by you cannot be provided.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the FAA, was vague and not satisfactory. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. S. C. Jain, PIO & AGM on video conference from NIC-Mumbai Studio;
The appellant had sought information about the transactions with customers of the bank. The Bank has denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts information which is held in a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.
Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;' The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, a customer chooses a particular bank, or a patient goes to particular doctor. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for the benefit of the one who is providing the information. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary. Information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement, or to obtain a job, or to get a license, cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship.
In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. In the instant case no larger public interest has been demonstrated.
Decision:
The appeal is disposed.
The information sought by the Appellant is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11 October 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (BK))