Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (3.28 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs Cen.Information Commr.& Ors on 3 October, 2012
(e). The appellant has also sought copies of the valuation report obtained by the bank
from its valuer at the time of sanctioning of the credit facility. As per Commission's
decision No. CIC/SM/A/2009/002063AT dated 23.9.2010, such information is exempted
from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought
information regarding the present places of posting of the officers of the bank, who
sanctioned the credit facility and whether any of them were given honourable retirement or
removed from service; as well as names of the bank officers against whom action was
taken for their lapses "leading to a fraud" in the case of the loan given to M/s G.K. Lumber
Mills Pvt. Ltd. In the above context, we note the following observations of the Supreme
Court in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central
Information Commissioner & Ors.:
"We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for
by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show
cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal
information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance
of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the
employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the
service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure
of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other
hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that
individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the
CIC/SH/A/2014/000812 & CIC/SH/A/2014/000984
larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders
could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
The Appellant has not established any larger public interest, warranting disclosure to him
of the information mentioned above, which is exempted from disclosure under various
clauses of sub section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act. His personal interest in the
mortgaged property cannot become the ground of larger public interest.
The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
1