ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.03.2022 seeking information stated as under:

“I have made a transfer for Rs 8999 to the below account holder whose holds an account with your branch:

Name: S Verma:

Account No.:604****551 IFSC: XXXXXXX1281 (i) Has the above-mentioned person’s account been credited with Rs 8999 in his account on 17th Feb 2022 by UPI Transaction ID: XXXXXXXX3366?

(ii) Status of the account.

(iii) Has there been transactions- Debit and/or Credit in the account from 01 Feb 2022 till date?

(iv) Have there been any other complaints that have been registered against this account holder earlier? If yes, what action has been taken?

(v) Has the account holder submitted KYC? Kindly provide the latest date of submission.

(vi) Kindly provide a certified copy of the latest KYC documents provided by the customer.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 24.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“In accordance with the provision u/s 11 of the RTI Act 2005, we wish to inform you that the serial no. 1,2,3,4 &6 of your request application dated 14.03.2022 is not allowed.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.04.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA order, if any, is not available on record.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the desired information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.06.2022.

5. The Appellant was represented by Ananth and on behalf of the respondent no one was present.

6. The representative of the appellant submitted that the reply of the CPIO is not proper as due procedure was not followed by the CPIO as envisaged u/s 11 of the RTI Act. He further submitted that since the matter is related to public interest, the information should be provided.

7. The Commission takes grave exception to the absence of the concerned CPIO, for the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The concerned CPIO is issued a strict warning for remaining absent during the hearing without any intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is advised to henceforth seek prior permission of the Commission before absenting himself and in case such a lapse is repeated in future, the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that even though the information is related to a third party, exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, however, the CPIO had inadvertently referred to Section 11 of the RTI Act. It is to be noted by the CPIO that Section 11 of the RTI Act lays down the procedure which is to be followed in cases where the CPIO intends to disclose any information which is related to a third party. The CPIO is therefore advised to remain careful while handling the RTI applications in future.

9. With regard to the submissions of the appellant’s representative that the matter is related to larger public interest, the Commission is not convinced that the instant matter involves larger public interest but is related to personal pecuniary interest of the appellant. Here it is pertinent to refer to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 wherein while explaining the term “Public Interest” it was held: <br/>

“22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "pub