Central Information Commission
Mr.M Saravanan vs State Bank Of India on 19 March, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003814/VS/02514
Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2011/003814/VS
Dated: 19.03.2013
Appellant: Shri M. Saravanan,
R/o No.93, Satyamoorthy Road,
Ramnagar, Coimbatore641 009.
Respondent: State Bank of India,
Region1, N.W.2, Admn Unit, Kurinji,
Complex, SB Riad, Combatore641 018.
Date of Hearing: 19.03.2013
ORDER
RTI application:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application on 13.5.2011 seeking information on school fees collected from the students.
2. The PIO responded on 21.6.2011 and denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a first appeal on 11.07.2011 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 29.07.2011 and denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed a second appeal on 03.11.2011 with the Commission.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant stated that he had sought information about the school fees collected by the bank on behalf of a trust. The appellant stated that he wants to know the total amount of fees collected by the bank for the period 22.09.2010 to 06.10.2010 and 07.10.2010 to 10.05.2011. The appellant stated that he expected the respondent to provide the information because this was a public charitable trust and he had only asked for some details of the school fees as he wanted to verify whether the prescribed norms were being followed.
5. The respondent stated that the information was denied under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent stated that the information held by the bank is in fiduciary capacity and that would affect the competitive position of their client.
6. The appellant stated that the respondent is mechanically denying the sought information without application of mind. The appellant said that the CPIO had denied information on grounds of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act which is about trade secrets and commercial confidence and the first appellate authority had denied on the grounds of personal information while stating section 8(1)(j). The appellant said that the information that he is seeking is very clearly in the public interest.
7.The appellant said that they had also sought the approval of the concerned party under section 11(1) of the RTI Act whether the information should be disclosed or not but they had not received any response.
8. The appellant stated that he is seeking the information for a public purpose to find out whether the school took excess fees and that if any excess fee has been taken, whether it has been adjusted to reflect the court's decision, taking into account that this matter had undergone a judicial process, and also to find out whether the Government's instructions had been complied with.
9. The respondent stated that it is unclear why the appellant is seeking the information by arguing public interest taking into account that the appellant already has information as he is a parent himself and has paid the fees.
10. The appellant said that the school is being run by the State Bank of India Officers Association. The appellant said that the bank's argument about competitive position being affected appears to be stretching the argument beyond any proportion as what is being discussed is a simple matter about whether the school is charging the right fees, i.e., according to the norms. So, in this light where does any argument of competitive position come? The appellant said that the information is not personal to any individual.
11. There is no reason sufficient enough, in context of the present RTI application, to deny information to the appellant in the manner sought. Neither is the information personal as is being made out by the respondent, nor is the argument tenable that competitive position will be adversely impacted. From what emerges in the hearing, the public interest would be served in providing the information.
Decision:
12. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application. Compliance must be done within 30 days of the issuance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer