Ved Prakash Agrawal vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 28 July, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ved Prakash Agrawal vs Idbi Bank Ltd. on 28 July, 2022

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18/05/2022 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 03/04/2020 and first appeal dated 23/04/2020:-

" आई डी ब क क आर डी सी राजनगर गािज़या बाद ऊ० ० ि थत शाखा म बचत खाता सं या ००६६१०४०००२१७३६१ जो क िनम!या वेलफे यर सोसाइटी रिज टर के नाम से ह िजसके *क ेिसड ट आवेदक ह उ, व-णत खाते के स/ब0ध म सूचना के अिधकार अिधिनयम २००५ क धारा ६ (१) के अंतगत िन4िलिखत सूचनाएं द :-

i) उ, खाते को खुलवाते समय सं था 7ारा ब क के स0मुख तुत खाता खोलने के फॉम क छाया ित सभी द तावेज; सिहत द जो *क सं था 7ारा ब क म जमा कराये गए थे |

ii) उ, खाते ब क 7ारा *कस ितिथ को < ज़ *कया गया एवं *कस कारण एवं *कस द तावेज के अभाव म < ज़ *कया गया | Page 1 of 4

iii) < करने से पूव ब क 7ारा >ाहक को *कस ितिथ एवं *कस मा?यम से सूिचत *कया गया उसके पूण जानकारी मय सबूत द |

iv) ब क *कस िनयम उपिनयम के अंतगत एक >ाहक के खाते को < ज कर सकता है उस िनयम उपिनयम का पूण िववरण मय सबूत द " |

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 03/04/2020 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai , seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 17-04-2020 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23-04-2020 The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 11-05-2020 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 18/05/2020 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18/05/2020 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory; since the appellant was President of Nirmalya Welfare Society and authorized signatory of the said account, pertaining to which the information was sought, the denial of the information by the respondent was illegal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.04.2020 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"1. Section 8 (1) (d) : information including commercial confidence trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure information

2. Section 8(1)(j): information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest which Page 2 of 4 would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer of the State Public information officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies disclosure of such information."

The FAA vide order dated 11.05.2020 disposed off the appeal with the comments that the contention of the Appellant was not tenable and the decision of CPIO was upheld.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Pankaj Vilasrao Deshmukh, Deputy General Manager, IDBI, Bank, Bandra (East), attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the account of Nirmalya Welfare Society was maintained with their bank. Further, the appellant had not submitted any supporting documents as to whether he was the authorized signatory in the account or not. Moreover, the RTI application being unsigned, the signatures could not be matched as per KYC compliance with those on the account related records available under their custody. Therefore, the information was denied under the provisions of section 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the CPIO on 17.04.2020. Further, in the absence of the appellant or any written objections thereof, the averments made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                सुरेश चं ा)
                                                             (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                             सूचना आयु )
                                                  Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                   दनांक/Date: 25.07.2022
Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )

                                                                                     Page 3 of 4
               उप पंजीयक
Dy. Registrar (       )
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)
 दनांक/Date: 25.07.2022
Addresses of the parties:
The CPIO
IDBI Bank Ltd IDBI Tower WTC
Complex Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005

The FAA
IDBI Bank Ltd IDBI Tower WTC
Complex Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005

Shri Ved Prakash Agarwal,




                                       Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission