Central Information Commission
Mr.Puneet Gupta vs Bank Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003395/17106
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003395
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Puneet Gupta,
C-152, Sector-5O.
NOIDA (UP) -201 301.
.Respondent : Public Information Officer
Bank of Maharastra
DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE
15, NBCC TOWERS, Floor
BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI- 110066
RTI application filed on : 25/05/2011
PIO replied : 25/08/2011
First Appeal : 14/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 14/10/2011
Second Appeal received on : 13/12/2011
Information sought:
In the matter of Bharat Kala Kendra(P)Ltd. B-28,Corinaught place New Delhi was having CC loan NC with Bank of Maharasthra at Branch, B-29,Connaught place New Delhi and was unable to clear it's debts. A) Copy/details of settlements letters issued by Bank to Official Liquidator, Delhi with Details of amount settled.
B) Copy/details of information regarding name of person/co. who has settled/paid the Bank With details of cheque/DO no. & on which bank, date & settled paid.
C) Copy/details of covering letter given to bank along with settlement cheque. D) Copy/Details to whom repaid loan amount was assigned & with reason.
Reply of the PIO:
Information can not be disclosed under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information has not been provided.
Order of the FAA:
FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information has not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present 1 Appellant: Mr. Puneet Gupta Respondent: Mr. RP Singh, CPIO & Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra along with Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate The Appellant has sought information related to Bharat Kala Kendra (P) Ltd. who is the customer of the bank. The PIO has refused to give information claiming exemption. The Appellant states that he is a creditor and a share holder in the company. The Appellant also states that the company is in liquidation and the winding up proceedings ongoing in the Delhi High Court. The bank is only authorized to deal with the authorized signatory of the company.
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.
The information sought is exempt under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information is exempt 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 27 January 2012 2 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PG) 3