O R D E R

(16.06.2023)

1. The issue under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 18.10.2021 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 23.08.2021 and first appeal dated 14.09.2021:-  The appellant was former treasurer of Salem District Lorry Booking Agents Association and member of the association. The below mentioned SB A/C No. ******661 and SB A/C NO :******685 in connection with the Right to Information Act the appellant requests to provide certified copies of the information requested below:

(i) Certified copy of account statement of SB A/C NO: ******661 and SB A/C No.********5685 of Salem District Lorry Booking Agents Association from 01- 10-2019 to 23-08-2021 is required.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 23.08.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Indian Bank, Salem, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 02.09.2021 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 14.09.2021. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 20.09.2021 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed second appeal dated 18.10.2021 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 18.10.2021 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.09.2021 and the same is reproduced as under:- “In this regard, we inform you that, only account holders can seek account related details. You are not the account holder for the account about which information is sought in your RTI application. As such the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) — (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) and 8 (1) (j) — (as the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual) under the RTI Act, 2005.”

The FAA vide order dated 20.09.2021 upheld the CPIO’s reply.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Ms Sreeja Rani, Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information sought pertained to / related to third party, held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that due reply was given by the respondent vide letters dated 02.09.2021 and 20.09.2021. The information sought pertained to the 3rd party who was entitled to preserve his/her privacy. The appellant in his RTI application as well as in the appeals failed to bring out any larger public interest warranting the disclosure of the information which the respondent had denied and claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (e) & (j) of the RTI Act. Besides, the appellant neither filed any written objection nor presented himself before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions made by the respondent were taken on record. There appears to be no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/- (Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश च(cid:3)ं ा)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आय(cid:8)ु )

(cid:5)दनांक/Date: 16.06.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत(cid:25))

Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)

011-