ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Jun 01, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Third Party Information
Supreme Court(Third Party Information)/ High Courts(Third Party Information)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CIC/UTOAN/A/2018/141917
(225.63 KB) pdf icon
29 Jan, 2020 P Kannan vs CPIO, O/o The Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration,

Information sought:
The Appellant through 8 points sought information regarding the action taken, orders passed and other related documents & entire file noting(s) in connection with the office Memorandum of Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi vide no. 006/04/UTS/001/134477 dt. 28.06.2011.

Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of the proceedings during hearing observes that the information sought by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application pertains to personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any larger public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. In view of this, Commission finds it pivotal to cite observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, wherein the aspect of “personal information” has been explained in a highly structured manner. In this regard, ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 may be noted, wherein the scope of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act with respect to service matters of government employees has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: “...5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794, it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal. 13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:- ‘12. 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 orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right. 13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.’ 14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1...” [Emphasis Supplied] Further, Commission also relies upon the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under: “…59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive…” [Emphasis Supplied] Adverting to the supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the aforementioned cases has categorized a variety of aspects that comes under the purview of “personal information” which are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission taking into account the facts of the present case upholds the submission of the PIO with regard to denial of information sought under instant RTI Application. No further action lies
2 CIC/IARMY/A/2018/146196
(195.46 KB) pdf icon
28 Jan, 2020 Vandna Shisodiya vs CPIO, Head Quarters,

Information sought:
The Appellant sought certified copy of pay slip of her husband Mahavir Singh, CHM No. 1497410F.

Decision:
Commission has received a written explanation from the First Appellate Authority, Sena Vayu Raksha Kendra, Army Air Defence Centre vide letter dated 11.01.2020. Upon perusal of the same, Commission observes that the husband of Appellant i.e., Mahavir Singh has been posted out to Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee on 01.06.2019 and that all the case files pertaining to marital discord with the Appellant has been forwarded to Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee on 07.06.2019. The Appellant has also been informed about this on 15.06.2019. Commission further observes that at the time of filing the instant RTI Application i.e., on 20.04.2018, Mahavir Singh, the husband of Appellant was very much in the strength of Sena Vayu Raksha Kendra, Army Air Defence Centre. Upon perusal of records, it appears that the CPIO has not provided any reply to the Appellant in response to the present RTI Application. Nonetheless, the information sought in the present RTI Application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Commission takes very strong exception of non-attendance of CPIO during the hearing of Second Appeal. He has also not provided any reply to the Appellant within the timeframe stipulated in the RTI Act. The conduct of the CPIO amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act. It also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information is with mala fide intent. The CPIO is hereby directed to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act for failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act. If the onus of not providing information lies with the “then CPIO”, the present CPIO shall serve a copy of this decision to the then CPIO and the then CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. The present CPIO is directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the delinquent CPIO should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action may be initiated against the concerned CPIO as well as the present CPIO.
3 CIC/RAILB/A/2018/129475
(130.24 KB) pdf icon
24 Dec, 2019 Jagan Prasad Singh Vs. The CPIO, M/o. Railways, Railway Recruitment Board, Divisional Office Compound, Mumbai-400008

Information Sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Western Railway, Railway Recruitment Board, Central, Mumbai,seeking information as follows:-
i) Marks scored in written and oral exam by appellant.
ii) Marks scored by Roll No. 24144124062667 in oral and written exam.
iii) In which category (General or OBC) the candidate of Roll No. 24144124062667 is selected.
iv) On what basis the selection of appellant is not made.
v) Is there any provision of failing in Interview. If yes, explain.

Decision
The respondent informed the Commission that they have replied with reference to the RTI application as available in their records to the appellant vide their letter dated 10.10.2017. The respondent further submitted that information sought by the appellant is not permissible to provide under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The given reply was also read out by the respondent.

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the defense taken by the respondent in denying the information (viz. invoking of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act is sustainable as per law. Commission observed that information sought is personal information of third party. The appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
4 CIC/NDMCK/A/2018/117255
(607.98 KB) pdf icon
03 Dec, 2019 Shri Paras Abrol Vs. PIO/ Dy. Assessor & Collector / KB Zone, NDMC, Karol Bagh, New Delhi

Information Sought

The Appellant filed RTI application dated 02.11.2017 seeking information on 05 points; That property No.G-39, Mansarovar -Garden, New Delhi was owned by Shri Om Prakash Anand and the same was assessed in his name in the records of M. C. D. That Shri Om Prakash Anand died On-04.10.2006 and he left behind three sons namely Shri Chander Mohan Anand, Rajesh Kumar Anand and Rakesh Kumar Anand and the legal heirs of his pre-deceased daughter namely Smt.Madhu Abrol. That the Applicant has come to know that the property. No .G-39, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi has been mutated in the names of Shri Chander Mohan Anand, Rajesh Kumar Anand and Rakesh Kumar Anand in the records of M.C.D.

1. Kindly let me know what documents were submitted -by the said Shri Chander Mohan Anand, Rajesh Kumar Anand and Rakesh Kumar Anand for getting the said- property No.G-39, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi mutated in their names in the-records of M.C.D.

2. Please also let me know that if any no objection affidavit or certificate or Indemnity Bond on behalf of the legal heirs of pre-deceased daughter of Shri Om Prakash Anand namely Smt. Madhu Abrol was filed or not at the time of getting the said property No. G-39, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi mutated in the records of M.C.D. by the said Shri Chander Mohan Anand, Rajesh Kumar Anand and Rakesh Kumar Anand.

5 CIC/PGCIL/A/2018/618478
(791.83 KB) pdf icon
25 Nov, 2019 Raghavendra Reddy Thotamgari Vs. The CPIO, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi

Information Sought
The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL), New Delhi, seeking information on five points regarding the procedure to be followed by PGCIL for construction of HT lines and Towers, including, inter-alia, (i) the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power for acquisition of land for construction of HT lines and Towers, (ii) the aspects required to be considered for acquiring the land.

Decision
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that though a point-wise reply was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 29.10.2018 complete and correct information has not been provided to the appellant. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 3 and 4 of the RTI application (i.e. the amount of compensation paid to the owner) to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

6 CIC/DOFSR/A/2017/169582/INSDI-BJ
(176.72 KB) pdf icon
07 Oct, 2019 Ms. Shilpa Verma Vs. CPIO, National Insurance Academy, 25, Balewadi Barer Road, Pune – 411045

Information sought
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the details of pre-promotional question paper along with answers held for Scale I to Scale II on 28.05.2017 as also the copy of answers selected by her in pre-promotional exam held on the above mentioned date and issues related thereto.

Decision
In this regard, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in AIIMS v. Vikrant Bhuria, LPA No. 487/2011,on similar issues pronounced in the context of an RTI application seeking information regarding all question papers and answers of all Mch super specialty entrance examinations conducted from 2005-2010. In the aforementioned matter, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while distinguishing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ICAI v. Shaunak S. Satya, Civil Appeal 7571/2011 had held as under:

“4. We tend to agree with the counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Apex Court in Shaunak H. Satya (supra) cannot be blindly applied to the facts of the present case. The judgment of the Apex Court was in the backdrop of the question papers in that case being available to the examinees during the examination and being also sold together with suggested answers after the examination. Per contra in the present case, the question papers comprises only of multiple choice questions and are such which cannot be carried out from the examination hall by the examinees and in which examination there is an express prohibition against copying or carrying out of the question papers. Thus the reasoning given by the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the present case.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Limited v. Shri MSH Beig, W.P.(C) 332/2012 & CM No.720/2012 dated 20.11.2014, made in the context of Promotional Examinations conducted by the NIA, wherein while relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Vikrant Bhuria LPA 487/2011 and in All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Prakash Singh: W.P.(C) 8916/2011, it was held as under:

“11. In my view, the aforesaid decision would squarely apply in the facts of the present case as the number of questions are limited and a disclosure of the same would affect the efficacy of the promotional exams conducted by the NIA. In this view, the impugned order passed by CIC insofar as it directs disclosure of question paper and answer key (model answers) is set aside”

In this context the Commission further referred to the following observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in AIIMS v. Vikrant Bhuria, LPA No. 487/2011 wherein it was stated as under:

“17. We also need to remind ourselves of the line of the judgments of which reference may only be made to State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K. Shyam Sunder AIR 2011 SC 3470, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648, The University of Mysore Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 holding that the Courts should not interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their field. Once the experts of the appellant have taken a view that the disclosure of the question papers would compromise the selection process, we cannot lightly interfere therewith. Reference in this regard may also be made to the recent dicta in Sanchit Bansal Vs. The Joint Admission Board (JAB) (2012) 1 SCC 157 observing that the process of evaluation and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialized courses, are all technical matters in academic field and Courts will not interfere in such processes.”

Having heard both the parties at length and considering the above referred judgments of the Superior Court, the Commission noted that a suitable reply/information had already been furnished to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

7 CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/103108
(702.29 KB) pdf icon
16 Sep, 2019 Devashish Sharma Vs. The CPIO, O/o The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi

Information sought:
The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police, North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, seeking the complete file, including copy of the complaint filed, statements recorded, legal opinion, recommendations of the officials, final orders, and other relevant documents regarding complaint no. 73-C dated 21.04.2017 registered against him with the CAW Cell, Rani Bagh, M2K, North West Distt., Delhi on 24.04.2017 by Ms. Shailja Sharma.

Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondents and perusing the records, observes that the information sought for was denied on the grounds that the file was under consideration with Senior Officers which is not a sufficient ground for withholding information under the RTI Act as this is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission, however, notes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Moti Ram (D) THR. LRS. & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2008 dated 07.12.2010 has held:
“………. the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.”

In view of the above, the proceedings of the CAW Cell are not disclosable under the RTI Act. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8 CIC/DTGHS/A/2018/155892
(125.38 KB) pdf icon
15 Feb, 2019 Shri R. P. Rohilla Vs. PIO/Dy. Director-(VP), Directorate General of Health Services,

Information sought
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2018, sought information regarding address of Ms. Sarveen Yadav & Ms. Reena Yadav being the candidates called for interview for the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in RHTC.
Dr. Charan Singh, Director & CPIO vide letter dated 24.07.2018 stated as follows:-
“it informed that the requisite information does not come under the purview of RTI Act 2005. Hence, the address of the individual cannot be disclosed without her consent”.

Decision
The Commission finds no infirmity in the FAO. Section 11 of the RTI Act does not cast an obligation on the PIO to resort to third party procedure in all cases. Section 11 comes into play only when the PIO proposes to disclose information which is personal to any third party. In the present case, the PIO held the information sought as personal and exempted under Section 8(1)(j) in absence of any element of larger public interest. Even before the Commission, no case of public interest has been established. Accordingly, the Commission finds the decision of PIO as well as FAA to be in line with law laid on the aspect. (See: Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Cen. Information Commr. and Ors. (03.10.2012 – SC) : MANU/SC/0816/2012 & Canara Bank vs. C.S. Shyam and Ors. (31.08.2017 - SC) : MANU/SC/1068/2017)
9 CIC/CORPB/A/2017/164860
(625.63 KB) pdf icon
07 Jan, 2019 Narendra Bahadur Singh Vs. CPIO, Corporation Bank

Information requested
The appellant requested information relating to bank account details, Mobile number, and whether the said account is a Savings or Current account, or is it held jointly.

Decision:
The respondent submitted that the appellant’s RTI application dated 03.06.2017 was received by the Bank on 07.06.2017. The respondent further informed that the appellant is not a signatory to the account in respect of which the information has been sought by him. Subsequently, the CPIO vide reply dated 03.07.2017 informed the appellant that the information sought by him pertains to the account of a third party, which is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity. Moreover, it also contains personal information of the third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third party. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

The above stand taken by the respondent has been upheld by the CIC
10 CIC/SCRLS/A/2017/112395/SD
(169.17 KB) pdf icon
07 Jan, 2019 Noorjahan Begum Vs. CPIO, Central Railway, General Manager’s, Secundrabad

Information requested
The Appellant sought information regarding Mohammed Yahya working as Technician - III in C & W Mechanical, SCR in terms of copy of his pay slip for the month of April, 2016, copy of his service book along with details of his nominee and marriage, whether he has disclosed any details of criminal cases registered against him etc.

Decision :
Appellant stated that she is pursuing her alimony case against her estranged husband and wants to know the details of his salary emoluments.

CPIO submitted that information sought has been denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the third party refused to give his consent to disclose the information sought in the RTI Application.

Commission observes that although no infirmity lies in the CPIO reply, however, the total emoluments of the concerned railway employee under reference should have been disclosed as part of suo-motu disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of the RTI Act.

In view of this, Respondent No. 2 is directed to provide the total emoluments of the concerned railway employee for the month of April 2016 to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent by Respondent No.2 to the Commission.
11 CIC/DSLSA/A/2017/133231/HCDEL
(726.45 KB) pdf icon
07 Jan, 2019 Sunita Jha Vs. CPIO, Delhi High Court Legal, Service Committee, Delhi High Court, New Delhi

Information requested
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC), Delhi High Court (DHC), New Delhi seeking information on two points, pertaining to applicants granted free legal service by DHCLSC, including, inter-alia (i) complete case-wise details of each 296 applications as stated in an earlier RTI reply with respect to grant of free legal service, and (ii) particulars related to monetary assistance given to each of the 296 applicants along with certified copies of all 296 applications.

Decision
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information of third parties i.e. the 296 applicants, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public interest and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12 CIC/DSHIP/A/2017/119776
(56.36 KB) pdf icon
11 Jul, 2018 S P Sinha Vs APIO Ministry of Shipping

ISSUE : The appellant sought information relating to appointment letters for the last 15 years in respect of Hindi Typists, Stenographer, promotion orders of Hindi Typist for the last 15 years and copy of DPC minutes and noting portions of the concerned promotion files of Mercantile Marine Deptt, Mumbai and other related information.
Not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO he filed appeal before the CIC.
DECISION :After scrutiny of the reply given by the CPIO the CIC gave the following directions :
Section 11(1) procedure to be applied in third party information requests.
Fix a joint inspection of the relevant records on a mutually convenient date, time and place in respect of voluminous records and give the requested information under section 7(6) of the Act free of cost.
13 CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/114146, CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/112849, CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/124953
(453.27 KB) pdf icon
04 Jul, 2018 Hans Raj Chugh Vs DDA

ISSUE :Appellant had requested for the action taken report with reference to a show cause notice issued to a third party. The CPIO rejected the request on the ground that the third party had stated specifically by name not to provide the information.
DECISION : After perusing the relevant records the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the complete status report to the appellant as the Commission found that the objection of the third party was not legally tenable considering that information sought was not personal in nature. Thus the reply of the PIO and the FAA was set aside.
14 CIC/DDATY/A/2017/120360
(288.35 KB) pdf icon
04 Jul, 2018 Hans Raj Chug Vs. PIO, Dy. Director (Bldg)/C&I, Delhi Development Authority

Information sought
Vide RTI application dated 08.11.2016, the appellant sought action taken report w.r.t. SCN dated 21.10.2005 & 09.02.2011 and other information. CPIO/Asstt. Dir. Arch. (Bldg.)/C&I/PIO vide letter dated 27.12.2016 informed that the owner of the plot no. 6 i.e. M/s Jaina Property Pvt. Ltd vide their letter dated 05.09.2011 categorically mentioned your name for not providing any information under RTI Act 2005. Hence the information sought by the appellant is third party information and it cannot be provided. Dissatisfied with response received from PIO, the appellant filed first appeal. FAA/Director Building vide letter dated 10.03.2017 observed that the reply given by the PIO found in order and appeal disposed of. Feeling aggrieved as denial of information, the appellant approached the Commission.

Decision
Upon hearing the averments of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to furnish a complete status report clearly indicating: i) whether the allegation of the appellant is correct, ii) whether the Show Cause notice/s referred by him were indeed issued and if so, what follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the issuance of these notices. This status Report shall be submitted by the respondent within three weeks of receipt of this order, failing which noncompliance Notice shall be issued by this Commission upon Sh. Praveen Dhamija-the Dy. Director, present during the hearing.
15 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744
(58.11 KB) pdf icon
19 Apr, 2018 Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar

ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO.
DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.
Total Case uploaded: 72