ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2022 seeking information stated as under :-

 Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of Civil Appeal nos. 925 & 926/2021 on 26.03.2021. In pursuance to the directions, HSVP deposited 80% debt due i.e. Rs. 1287.90 Cr. as ascertained by the report of CAG in the Escrow Account of RMGSL maintained by Canara Bank, Prime Corporate Connaught Place Branch, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 on 25.06.2021.

Since, report of CAG was inconclusive as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed in its judgment dated 26.03.2021, therefore, Provide the report of forensic audit of borrower namely Rapid Metro Rail Gurugram South Limited, Gurugram (a sister concern company of IL &FS) got conducted by you/Bank.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.08.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- “The sought information is exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g), (h) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.08.2022 alleging that the reply provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 13.12.2022.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Arvind Kumar, CPIO and Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had failed to accept the contention that the information solely pertained to utilization and diversion of public funds relating to the projects developed by RMGSL. Therefore, the exemption claimed by the respondent was not applicable in this case.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant was seeking the information in the capacity of departmental head of HMRTC and not in the capacity of a citizen. Besides, the appellant was neither the authorized signatory in the account nor had any nexus with the account. Further, the forensic audit report contained financial and commercially sensitive information of their customer i.e. Rapid Metro Rail Gurugram South Limited, which was held by them in fiduciary capacity. Therefore, the information was exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

8. the commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate response was given by the cpio on 05.08.2022. moreover, the appellant failed to demonstrate larger public interest vitiating the fiduciary relationship shared between the respondent bank and their customer i.e. rapid metro rail gurugram south limited whose account related information was sought in the rti application. that being so, the commission finds no scope for further intervention in the matter. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी राम लंगमआनंदी राम लंगम) आनंदी राम लंगमआनंदी राम लंगम Information Commissioner (सूचनासूचना आयुआयु) सूचनासूचनाआयुआयु दनांक/Date: 17.01.2024 Authenticated true copy Suman Bala (सुमन बाला) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties: