File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001541. Case: Chandratan B. Somani Vs Central Public Information Officer, Dena Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001541 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Vijay Kumar, Manager (Legal) |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 21.8.2013 filed by the Appellant, seeking a copy of all the information provided by the Respondents to a third party, Shri Purushottam Somani, pursuant to the Commission's decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001289/19303 dated 19.6.2012. The CPIO responded on 20.9.2013 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In his order dated 6.12.2013, disposing of the first appeal dated 31.10.2013 of the Appellant, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal. 2. The Appellant prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by him. In support of his request, he cited the Commission's decision No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044-DS. The Respondents stated that in the above mentioned order dated 19.6.2012, the Commission had directed them to provide to the Appellant in that case, Shri Purushottam Somani, information regarding action taken against an employee of the bank for a matter, which neither related to Shri Purushottam Somani, nor to the Appellant in this case. They further submitted that the above decision of the Commission was complied with. However, subsequently, in its judgment dated 3.10.2012 in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., the Supreme Court has decided that information falling in the above category shall be regarded as personal information, covered by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which can be disclosed only in the case of a finding of larger public interest. 3. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties before us. It is noted that in its judgment mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Supreme court has observed, inter alia, as follows:-- "13. 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... |
To continue reading
Request your trial