Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000123/01676 and Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000123. Case: Shri Denson Joseph, Jagruk Nagrik Suraksha Sangathan, 61-C, 2nd Floor, Kalu Sarai, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-16 Vs Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Overseas Br., Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Central Information Commission
Case Number | Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000123/01676 and Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2012/000123 |
Judges | Vijai Sharma Information Commissioner |
Issue | Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(d) |
Judgement Date | January 02, 2013 |
Court | Central Information Commission |
Decision: Vijai Sharma Information Commissioner RTI application: 1. The appellant, in the context of bank's reply dated 14.12.2011 to an earlier appeal, filed an RTI application on 1.2.2012 with the PIO asking for information about the valuation assignments assigned to various empanelled valuers for the period 26.4.2010 to 26.8.2011. In all, information was sought on 5 points. The PIO, while furnishing information on point 4 on 29.2.2012, denied information on other points under section 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.3.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 12.4.2012 and rejected the appeal. The appellant approached the Commission on 2.5.2012 in second appeal Hearing: 2. During the hearing, the respondent was present. 3. The respondent stated that the information being sought in the RTI application fell under the exemption from disclosure clauses of the RTI Act and hence had to be denied. He informed that the information essentially was of commercial confidence. He also informed that this is not the first time that an RTI application has been submitted by the appellant on the points in the current RTI application. Earlier also, RTI applications have been made on 5.9.2011, 5.11.2011, 26.12.2011 and 10.3.2012. 4. The respondent elaborated that the appellant was submitting this application on behalf of one of the valuers of the bank and that the information was being sought about the other valuers and their activities and terms and conditions on which the valuers were given assignments. It was explained that there are 182 valuers under the jurisdiction of the respondent bank and when the assignments are given, it is on the basis of a number of factors pertaining to competence, work experience, so that the best results are possible. It was explained... |
To continue reading
Request your trial