File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002073. Case: Uma P. Vs Central Public Information Officer, Andhra Bank. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002073 |
| Counsel | For Respondents: M.N. Sudhakar, DGM and CPIO and P.K. Goswami, DGM (Law) and CPIO |
| Judges | Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 20, 7(1), 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) |
| Judgement Date | December 15, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
|
Decision: Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner Hearing on 5.11.2015 1. This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 19.4.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on the following three points concerning the accounts/investments of Maj. (Retd.) P. Parthasarathy, came up today:-- "(1) Saving bank transactions from date of opening till date & account details for SB account at Narayanaguda Branch, Hyderabad. (2) Numbers of all other SB accounts in his name (either singly or jointly). (3) Details (opening date, balance etc.) of all other accounts/investments (FD's, RD's, OD's etc.) in his name (either singly or jointly) since 2000." 2. The Respondents stated that the information was denied because it pertained to the accounts of a third party. 3. The representative of the Appellant stated that Maj. (Retd.) P. Parthasarathy is the father of the Appellant. She further submitted that the Appellant, who is the unmarried daughter of Maj. (Retd.) P. Parthasarathy, cannot be regarded as third party to the information sought by her. She stated that the relationship between the bank and its customers is not in the nature of a fiduciary relationship. Therefore, the Respondents were wrong in denying the information. The representative of the Appellant also stated that she and her sister (the Appellant) are both unmarried and legal dependents of their father, Maj. (Retd.) P. Parthasarathy. However, he has filed a case against them in a family court, stating that he has been penniless since 1992 and laying claim to the financial resources of the two daughters. In response to our query, the representative of the Appellant submitted that the two sisters are not working at the movement, but have some independent source of income. According to the representative of the Appellant, the information is required for the two sisters to seek justice in the above mentioned case before the family court. She argued that since disclosure of this information would serve the administration of justice, such disclosure is also a matter of larger public interest. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties. We do not agree with the submission of the representative of the Appellant that since the Appellant is the unmarried daughter of Maj. (Retd.) P. Parthasarathy, she is not a third party in respect of the information sought by her. In this context, we note that a matter concerning an RTI request by a lady, seeking information regarding some payments and service records of her late father, was considered and disposed of by the Commission in its order No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000031/6487 dated 4.12.2014. The Commission gave the following decision in the above matter:-- "The basic protection afforded by virtue of exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be lifted or disturbed... |
To continue reading
Request your trial