ORDER

(17.02.2021)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 14.07.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 10.04.2018 and first appeal dated 08.06.2018:-

(i) Whether the A/c No. ###1011 opened in Lady Doak College Branch is still active and in whose name it has been opened and when?

(ii) The name the then officer/Manager who was responsible for opening this account.

(iii) Is it a Saving Bank account or any other account? Kindly specify.

(iv) The copies of the account opening Documents pasted with photos of the applicant and the copies of any other documents submitted by the applicant like Aadhar Card, ration card etc along with the account opening form.

(v) Details like the introducer and his/her A/c No if any and any other details of the introducer like the address etc.

(vi) This account has been opened presumably in the name of a dead person, Mr. M.A. Subbusamy whose DOD is 03.10.1987 according to the certificate no.

CAR/12864/2016 issued by the Madurai Corporation.

(vii) The SBI Bank pass book pertaining to this account has been used as an ID proof to create a Power of Attorney, as can be seen from the 4th page of the POA.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 10.04.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of India, Madurai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 22.05.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 08.06.2018. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 14.07.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 02.07.2018 inter alia on the grounds that the respondent did not provide requisite information although the same was in larger public interest.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.05.2018 denied the information under provisions of section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of RTI Act. The FAA upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

Hearing on 29.07.2020:

4.1. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Joseph Christy, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Madurai attended the hearing through audio conference.

4.2. The Commission passed the following directions on 18.08.2020:

“6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent during the course of hearing when inquired about the details of the account holder was unable to provide the same. The respondent while claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act has not examined the public interest involved in the matter. In case of a malfeasance, the respondent authority is under an obligation to act in larger public interest. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 13/07/2012 in (W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011) UPSC vs. R.K. Jain while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:

"'The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if "public interest" justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information."

In view of this, the respondent is directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised response to the appellant. The Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to Shri Joseph Christy, CPIO, and Shri R. Balaji, the then CPIO, to show cause as to why penal