Central Information Commission
Shri. S Uamar Farooq vs Indian Bank on 30 September, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001002/SG/14954
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/001002/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : S. Umar Farooq
No. 51, Yaseen Khan Street
Ground Floor
Pallavaram, Chennai-600043
PIN- 743145
Respondent : Mr. K G Balasubramaniam,
DGM & Public Information Officer, Indian Bank, All India Head Office and Registered Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001 RTI application filed on : 06/11/2010 PIO replied on : 12/11/2010 First Appeal : 10/12/2010 First Appellate Authority order on : 04/01/2010 Second Appeal received on : 23/03/2011 Information Sought:
The bank had filed a suit to recover a few crores.
Following Information sought regarding the suit O.A. No. 239/1998 before a debt recovery tribunal, Chennai.
1) Whether you had impleaded Mr. Muthukumaraswamy and Mrs. Parvathy in your suit?
2) Whether the suit is pending or finalized?
3) Whether you had impleaded the purchaser of the land in your suit?
4) Whether the original documents submitted by Mr. V. Muthukumarasamy and Mrs. Parvathy?
Reply:
In this regard, as per S13 of Banking Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act.1970), Bank has statutory obligation to maintain secrecy of customers' details. Further RTI, 2005 exempts providing information which involves commercial confidence under section 8(1) (e). Information regarding customers is held in fiduciary capacity which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (d), hence, information sought by the appellant is not provided.
Grounds for the First Appeal/ Complaint:
Information not given by the PIO U/S 8(1)(e) . A fraud has been committed by the selling the mortgaged properties and hence there is a public interest in disclosure.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
PIO has rejected the application. FAA upheld the rejection, but did not address the issue of fraud alleged by the appellant.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information not provided by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent at NIC Studio Mumbai Respondent: Mr. K G Balasubramaniam along with Mr. T Chandrasekharan on Video Conferencing from NIC Studio Chennai The Appellant has alleged that a fraud had been committed and the Bank had filed a suit for recovery. The Appellant has only sought information regarding the suit filed, seeking information about the people who were impleaded, whether the suit is pending and the list of original documents submitted. The PIO has refused to provide this information claiming exemption under Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI, It appears that the same has been claimed frivolously. The information sought is primarily concerning the action so of the bank and does not seek any specific information about the transactions or the accounts of a customer and hence the Commission rejects the claim for exemption.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 20th October 2011 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 30th September 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MG) Page 2 of 2