Central Information Commission
Suresh Rattani vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 August, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/BKOBD/A/2020/131920
Mr. Suresh Rattani ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
Bank of Baroda
Regional Office, 1st Floor, Zone Market
Sec-10,
10, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh
Chhattisgarh-490006
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 03-07-2020 FA : 29-07-2020 SA : 19-10-2020
1
CPIO : 16-07-2020 FAO : 06-08-2020 Hearing: 28
8-07-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Bank of Baroda, New Delhi. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 42. The CPIO vide letter dated 16-07-2020 had denied the information as sought by the appellant u/s 8(1)(e) & (j) of RTI Act, 2005.Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 29-07-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 06-08-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and dismissed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant did not attend the hearing despite notice. The respondent, Shri Siddharth Verma, CPIO/Deputy Regional Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 16.07.2020, they have already informed the appellant that the information sought by him is held by their office in its fiduciary capacity. The disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
5. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding a saving account no. 129710034409 and other issues related thereto. The appellant in his RTI Application has himself admitted that the said account belongs to M/s Dream Homes Honors Society. Since the said account regarding which the information is being sought by the appellant is pertaining to a third party, therefore the documents submitted before the bank to open the said account, details of the account holder etc. remains third party personal information for the appellant. The documents submitted by the third party with the bank are kept by them in their fiduciary relationship. The disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8 (1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has also failed to establish larger public interest in seeking such information.
6. In this regard, the Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:
Page 2 of 422. ".... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary
- a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer."
7. In view of the above matrix and observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the information sought has rightly been denied by the respondent under relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 16.07.2020 is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 01-08-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Bank of Baroda
Regional Office, 1st Floor, Zone Market
Sec-10, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh-490006
2. Mr. Suresh Rattani
Page 4 of 4