File Nos. CIC/CORPB/A/2017/178218/SH and CIC/CORPB/A/2017/178220/SH. Case: Chaitanya Kumar Singhania Vs Central Public Information Officer, Corporation Bank Zonal Office. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File Nos. CIC/CORPB/A/2017/178218/SH and CIC/CORPB/A/2017/178220/SH |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pooja Jewrajka, Advocate and For Respondents: Amit Kumar, Chief Manager |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 11, 19, 8 (1)(d), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | April 12, 2017 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. These files contain appeals concerning two RTI applications, both dated 22.4.2016, filed by the Appellant to the Respondent Bank. In the application on File No. 178218, the Appellant sought information on ten points regarding whether gateway facility had been allowed by Corporation Bank to Kabish Infotech Pvt. Ltd., when the facility was allowed, whether the accounts maintained by the above party with the bank were regular, whether all the charge back out of the merchant activities of Kabish Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was taken care of by the said company, details of total outstanding on account of charge back due and owed by the company to the bank, details of cross border fraudulent transaction, if any, created by the above company, details of security provided by them to the bank for availing e-payment gateway facility, details and break-up of the deficit in the books of the bank pertaining to the e-payment gateway account opened by the company, details and particulars of the fraud committed by the said company as would appear from the news article published in the Business Standard and Millennium Post dated 17th and 18th March, 2016 respectively and details of the proceedings if any taken by the bank against the persons in control of the said company. The CPIO responded to the above RTI application on 19.5.2016 and denied the information on the ground that it related to third party information which had no relation to any public activity or interest. He added that the information was kept with the bank in a fiduciary relationship and cited Section 8(1) (j), (d) and (e) of the RTI Act for denial of information. The CPIO also stated that some of the information sought by the Appellant was in the nature of query. The Appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 25.5.2016 and stated that the plea taken by the CPIO was untenable and illegal and contrary to the objective and scope set out in the Preamble of the RTI Act. He added that there was no bar under Section 8 (1) (j), (d) and (e) of the Act as mentioned by the CPIO. There were no legal proceedings pending pertaining to Kabish Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vis-a-vis him (the Appellant). The Respondents have sent us a copy of the order dated 21.6.2016 passed by the FAA on the above appeal, in which he upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. In his appeal dated 27.6.2016 to the Commission, the Appellant stated, inter alia, that he had several accounts maintained with the Respondent Bank including various investments in tax saving instruments. He added that an application was filed by a company promoted by him for availing e-payment gateway facility (EPG) from Corporation Bank, Maniktala Branch, Kolkata. However, for some strange reasons the application was not considered for some time and thereafter a conditional sanction was given on 20.4.2016, which was sought to be modified by the company promoted by the Appellant by giving certain suggestions on 2.5.2016. Thereafter, on 19.5.2016, the company promoted by the Appellant was... |
To continue reading
Request your trial