Central Information Commission
Surender Arora vs State Bank Of India on 19 July, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/104021
Surendra Arora .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Asst. General Manager, State
Bank of India, Region-2, A.O.-2,
RTI Cell, Plot No. 23, First Floor,
DDA Commercial Complex, Road
No. 44, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11/07/2023
Date of Decision : 11/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14/08/2021
CPIO replied on : 16/09/2021
First appeal filed on : 15/10/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 27/10/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 24/01/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.08.2021 seeking the following information:1
"SF A/c No. : 51028607979 transferred at Branch Office Sector-14 (Branch Code 30432), Rohini, Delhi from Brandi Office CGS Marg, New Rohtak Road, Branch Code : 31017 (Erstwhile SBBJ) in the name of Manju Arora and Surender Arora.
1. Date on which the name of Surender Arora was added in the said account.
2. Names and designation of the all the concerned officials either of workman or of officer level who have added my name in the said account."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the Appellant on 16.09.2021 stating as under:
"1. The name of Surender Arora was added in the said account on 13/02/2019.
2. Information sought by you pertains to third party and being fiduciary capacity in nature is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (e) and 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.10.2021. FAA's order, dated 27.10.2021, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Intra Video-Conference.
Respondent: Shri R K Jena, Manager present through Intra Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that the Respondent has wrongly not furnished complete and correct information on his RTI application.
The Appellant further alleged that "That on 13.02.2019 a fraud was committed by some staff members at SBI (Erstwhile SBBJ) GGS Marg, Rohtak Road, New Delhi Branch Code : 31017 (now this branch has been merged with B/O SBI, Rohtak Road, Delhi) by adding my name i.e. Surender Arora in Account No. 51028607979 with malafide intention, ulterior motives & vested interest without my consent or 2 permission for the reasons best known to them. Further no official information has been given to me till date. That, further, none of the following documents were ever demanded or obtained from me before converting the said account into Joint Account."
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 16.09.2021, complete point- wise reply/information, as per the provisions of the RTI Act was provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on his RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the information which is sought by the Appellant in his RTI application has been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission observes that the Respondent has duly furnished information to the Appellant on point no. 1 of the RTI application. Further, the nature of information sought for by the Appellant on point no. 2 of the RTI application regarding name of the concerned officer, the Commission is of the view that the information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Further, relevant extract of Section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act is reproduced below for ready reference -
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decision dated 13/12/20012 Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi & Anr [Civil appeal No. 9052 of 2012] has held that section 8(1)(g) can come into play with any kind of relationship. It requires that where the disclosure of such information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purpose, the information need not be provided. In other words if in the opinion of the concerned authority there is danger to life or possibility of danger to physical safety, the CPIO would be entitled to bring such case within the exemption of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. It was further held in para 30 of the decision that:
3"Marks are required to be disclosed but disclosure of individual names would hardly hold relevancy either to the concept of transparency or for proper exercise of the right to information within the limitation of the Act."
The Commission further observes that designation of the official of the respondent public authority (as sought by the Appellant on point no. 2 of the RTI application) can always be furnished under the RTI Act. It cannot be treated as personal information of third party. In view of this, the Commission directs the Respondent to give designation of the concerned official either of workman or of officer level who have added the name of the Appellant in the said account, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appellant is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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 / 4