Central Information Commission
M.Keshava Rao vs State Bank Of Hyderabad on 20 December, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001184
Appellant : Shri M Keshva Rao, Ranga Reddy
Public Authority : State Bank of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Date of Hearing : October 20, 2016
Date of Decision : November 29, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri S Siddiqui, Law Officer - through VC
RTI application : 06.08.2015
CPIO's reply : 26.08.2015, 18.09.2015
First appeal : 27.09.2015
FAA's order : 29.01.2016
Second appeal : 26.04.2016
ORDER
1. Shri M. Keshva Rao, the appellant, wanted information pertaining to (i) copy of the extract of the court file of the receipt dated 13.04.2006 of the S.B. Hyd. R.R. Dist Court Extension Counter for Rs. 92,226/-, through an account of odd number, informing that he was the defendant in the case; asking about (ii) the name of the depositor in whose favour the said amount was deposited, and whether the same was deposited in the capacity of an individual or representative of M/s Sankuri Mutually Aided Coop. Housing Society; and (iii) whether the said amount was replaced with any court fee stamps, while seeking copies of the same.
2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 26.08.2015, intimated the appellant that the information sought was third party information which was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, vide letter dated 18.09.2015, the CPIO provided a copy of the extract of receipt as sought by the appellant. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the FAA stating that the CPIO should be directed to provide the correct and complete information sought. The FAA intimated the appellant that the CPIO had already provided his response through two letters dated 26.08.2015 and 18.09.2015. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the respondents should be directed to provide the information sought.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the information sought was denied by the respondents u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that as the appellant was neither the depositor nor was he related with the account in question, they had refrained from providing information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He stated that the appellant wanted the vouchers as deposited by the plaintiff in the court's account, in relation to the case wherein he was the defendant. He submitted that even though they had earlier denied the provision of information through letter dated 26.08.2015, they had provided a copy of the extract of receipt as sought by the appellant vide letter dated 18.09.2015.
4. On hearing both the parties and going through the available records, the Commission holds that the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it constitutes third party information as the appellant is not the depositor or the account-holder of the account concerned and the desired information cannot be provided to him. The respondents had already provided the disclosable information. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority State Bank of Hyderabad State Bank of Hyderabad Region-IV, ZO, Secunderabad ZO, Cyberabad, H.No. 1-8-563/1 IDPL Colony, Narsapur Road Above Chikkadpally Branch Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037 Hyderabad-500020 Shri M. Keshva Rao H. No. 1-39, Pothaipally (V) BPO Thumukunta, Via Hakimpet AF Shamirpet Mandal Ranga Reddy Distt-500078