RTI requests for third-party bank transaction details not disclosable by non-custodian public authority; treated as grievance.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) “We the applicant holding SB Account in the Bank of Baroda, having account no. 01740*****21. On dt 11-2-2020, there was a telephone (Phone No. 70290***31) from Bank of Baroda and stated us that Bank Verification is to be done. We applicant relied upon that message (telephone talk) During this time following amount was (transaction) withdrawn from my above Bank of Baroda’s account.

On thee basis of OTP and Banks we consulted (inquired) in your bank and asked to give details of the money transactions has been done from my above bank account. The Bank authority replied us that the above transaction has been done by VIZA card. But BOB authority did not give the name of VIZA card holder who has committed the above transactions.

Please give details of following VIZA card

1. xxxxxxxxx25436

2 . xxxxxxxx99797

3 . xxxxxxx99808

4 . xxxxx731609

Please give the names of above 4- Viza card holders who is holding Viza card in your bank.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Sought information is related to other bank i.e. Yes Bank, Kotak Mahindra, and undersigned is not the custodian of captioned information hence, unable to furnish the required information.”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2023. The FAA vide order dated 06.04.2023 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 07.08.2023.

5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Kundan Kumar Singh, DGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.

7. The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has primarily filed a grievance petition under the garb of seeking for information under the RTI Act. Moreover, as pointed out in the CPIO’s reply, the subject matter or contents of the RTI Application do not appear to be even concerning the Respondent bank.

8. Having observed as above and in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case, the Commission finds the instant appeal devoid of merit.

9. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

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