File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/001206 and 1498 (Two Same Cases). Case: Chandratan B. Somani Vs Central Public Information Officer, Union Bank of India. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File Nos. CIC/SH/A/2014/001206 and 1498 (Two Same Cases) |
| Counsel | For Respondents: Tanuka Banerjee, Assistant Manager (Legal) |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | June 12, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner 1. Both these files contain appeals regarding the RTI application dated 21.8.2013, filed by the Appellant, seeking information under four points in the context of some court proceedings. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, he filed second appeal dated 10.2.2014 to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 14.2.2014. 2. The Respondents reiterated the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act on the ground that it pertained to the case of a third party. It is seen that subsequently, in his order dated 11.12.2013, the FAA claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(d) on the ground that the information had been sought about the legal proceedings pertaining to a third party account holder and was exempted from disclosure. The Respondents stated that the Appellant has sought information regarding the court proceedings in respect of two third party account holders, whose loan became NPA and in whose case, the bank has started SARFAESI action. Information has also been sought regarding collateral securities given by the borrowers and whether the bank has invoked all the collaterals offered. 3. The Appellant prayed for direction to the Respondents to provide the information sought by him and challenged their decision to deny it on the ground that it pertained to the case of third parties. In favour of his request, he cited the following decisions of the Commission:-- "(i) CIC/SG/A/2009/000172/3092 dated 5.5.2009. (ii) CIC/SG/A/2009/000889/3615 dated 8.6.2009. (iii) CIC/LS/A/2010/001044-DS dated 24.3.2011." He also quoted the following observations, made by the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. UOI [(1982) 2SCR 365], which were relied upon by the Commission in its decision No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044-DS dated 24.3.2011 mentioned above:-- "....the Court would allow the objection to disclosure if it finds that the document relates to affairs of State and its disclosure would be... |
To continue reading
Request your trial