Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Himmant Singh vs State Bank Of India on 23 January, 2025

                                       के ीय सूचना आयोग
                               Central Information Commission
                                    बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                                Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई िद     ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं         ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/145379+
                                          CIC/SBIND/A/2023/651873

 Himmant Singh                                                      ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                            VERSUS
                                             बनाम
 CPIO:
 State Bank of India,                                          ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
 Jodhpur

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 30.07.2023                 FA        : 26.08.2023            SA     : 14.11.2023

 CPIO : 17.08.2023                FAO : 20.09.2023                  Hearing : 16.01.2025


Note - The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications.

Date of Decision: 22.01.2025
                                           CORAM:
                                     Hon'ble Commissioner
                                   _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                          ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Lease agreement (office premises Pathmeda Branch 32237) की certified copy, all correspondences with regard to lease agreement between branch & RBO 6 Jalore की certified copies.

(ii) All mails sent by Branch Mail ID [email protected] during Shri Himmat Singh tenure at SBI Pathmeda की certified copy.

(iii) Correspondence in relation to letter received from S.H.O Sanchore with relation to cheques made available in case where one of signatories signature was required for forensic examination in mukadma no. 262 dated 16.06.2021 under IPC 467,468,471,420 and 120 B, certified copy.

(iv) Notice sent by branch Pathmeda for withholding internet banking facility due to documentary requirement. Also, the internet banking documents submitted by Goverdhan Goshala.

(v) Notice sent by branch Pathmeda for lease agreement required document from goshala. Certified copy.

..., etc./ other related information

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.08.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

i: वतमान म पथमेड़ा शाखा (32237) का Lease Agreement execute नहीं होने के कारण उपल नहीं है।

ii-v: चाही गयी वांिछत सूचना RTI Act की धारा 8(1) (e) के अंतगत Fiduciary Relationship एवं धारा 8 (1) (j) के अंतगत गत सूचना होने के कारण exempted ेणी की सूचना है, िजसके उजागर करने म कोई हद लोकिहत िवधमान होना तीत नहीं होता है ।

etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.11.2023.

5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Ramesh, AGM and CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information has been wrongly denied by the Respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the lease agreement of Pathmedha branch is not available as the same has not been executed. For point no. 6(a) to 6 (e) he stated that the information sought is exempted category of information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, being Fiduciary Relationship and personal information under Section 8(1)(j), disclosure of which does not appear to be of larger public interest. Further he clarified that the requisite information regarding inquiry proceedings sought in point No. 6(f) of the RTI Application has been furnished to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has appropriately denied the personal information related to the third party under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the Appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:

"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all Page 3 of 4 personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."

9. Having observed as above, and in the absence of any larger public interest apparent from the disclosure of said information, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 22.01.2025 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business office-6, Jalore, 1st Floor, SBI Jalori Gate Branch, Jodhpur - 342003

2. Himmant Singh Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)