File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000897. Case: Ashok Kumar M. Pandya Vs Central Public Information Officer, Bank of India. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFile Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000897
CounselFor Respondents: P. Augustine, AGM
JudgesSharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
IssueRight To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)
Judgement DateMay 28, 2015
CourtCentral Information Commission

Court Information Central Information Commission Cases
Judgment Date 28-May-2015
Party Details Ashok Kumar M. Pandya Vs Central Public Information Officer, Bank of India
Case No File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896 and CIC/SH/A/2014/000897
Judges Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner
Advocates For Respondents: P. Augustine, AGM
Acts Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(d), 8(1)(j)

Decision:

Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner

1. These files contain appeals in respect of the RTI applications dated 27.11.2013 and 21.10.2013, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on various issues. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he has approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases.

2. In the RTI application dated 27.11.2013 (File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000896), the Appellant sought information under four points regarding LTC availed of by officers of the bank during the period 1.12.2005 to 30.11.2013. The information sought included particulars of the officers, details of their tickets, whether the officers concerned were granted permission to go abroad while availing of LTC, copy of the application for reimbursement of LTC and copy of the air tickets showing air fare and boarding pass etc. The Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act on the ground that its disclosure would harm the competitive position of the third parties concerned and cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy. The Respondents also stated that the information sought is too voluminous and would take considerable effort to collect. The Appellant alleged widespread irregularities in the case of LTCs availed of by officers of the bank. He stated that there were cases in which the officers, who availed of LTC to Andaman & Nicobar, also visited foreign destinations with the same tickets. He prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by him. In response to our query, the Respondents stated that they have over five thousand branches all over India and information concerning LTC availed of by officers is scattered in the offices in which claims concerning LTC were settled.

3. We have considered the records and the submissions of both the parties and note that there is no ground whatsoever to invoke Section 8(1)(d) in this case, because the officers, who availed of LTC, are not commercial entities that need to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT