Central Information Commission
Mr.Sadanand U vs State Bank Of India on 25 September, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI110067
TEL; 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001546/04912
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/001546
Dated: 25.9.2013
Appellant: Shri Sadanand U Gawargur, 41/B30, Angarki Coop. Housing Society Ltd, R.S.C.55, Sector 5, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai400067 Respondent: Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, RBO, Super Circle ExcellenceII, Shop 15, B Wing, Shrihari Coop. Hsg. Society, RTO lane, Opp. Ambedkar Hall, 4 Bunglows, Andheri (W) Mumbai400053 Date of Hearing: 25.9.2013 O R D E R RTI application
1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 9.3.2012 seeking information about the introducer, certified copies of the documents submitted, date of opening with present status and authenticated bank statements in respect of two accounts. The CPIO denied the information on 25.4.2012 under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 26.5.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). No reply of the FAA is available on the file. The appellant approached the Commission on 20.9.2012 in second appeal.
Hearing
3. The respondent participated in the hearing through video conferencing. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.
4. The respondent stated that the appellant, through his RTI application of 9.3.2012, was seeking information about the two current accounts. The respondent further said that the appellant was seeking information about the introducers, the documents submitted to the bank at the time of opening, dates of opening the accounts, their present status and the present operators of these account and authenticated bank statements.
5. The respondent stated that the CPIO sent a reply to the appellant on 25.4.2012 denying the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the information sought was third party/personal information.
6. The action taken by the respondent was in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision
7. Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter as the reply of the CPIO is comprehensive and according to the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.
(Vijai Sharma) Information Commission Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer