Central Information Commission, New Delhi File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/002007 Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19) Date of hearing Date of decision : : 14th December 2016 14th December 2016 Name of the Appellant : SHRI N P SINHA 57, NANDANPURI, KHAJPURA, PATNA, BIHAR-800014 Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, IDBI BANK LTD REGD. OFFICE, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI- 400005 The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Patna. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Manoj Jain, GM was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal These files contain appeals in respect of two RTI applications, both dated 7.7.2015, filed by the Appellant, seeking information on two points regarding action taken by the Respondents on his letters dated 30.10.2014, 18.11.2014, 28.4.2015 and 5.6.2015 regarding the transfer of his son and certified copies of the relevant notings regarding the above; as well as information concerning the financial and administrative powers of seven top ranks of the bank, beginning with its chairman and the related acts, rules and circulars etc. Not satisfied with the response of the Respondents, the Appellant has approached the CIC in second appeal in both the cases.
2. With regard to the RTI application on File No. 2006, seeking information regarding the action taken on four letters sent by the Appellant concerning his son s transfer and related notings, the Respondents reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. They reiterated that the notings would contain information regarding the transfer of one of their employees and this information cannot be provided to the Appellant. The Appellant has sent to the Commission his written submissions dated 7.12.2016, in which he has cited the Commission s order No. CIC/BS/A/2013/001751/VS dated 23.2.2015 in favour of his request for file notings etc. He has also stated that the FAA did not give him a personal hearing before disposing of his appeal. He stated that he cannot be regarded as third party in this matter. 3. In regard to the RTI application on File No. 2007, the Appellant stated that the information sought by him was denied under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act and submitted that such information is required to be disclosed as per Section 4 (1) (b) (ii) and (v) of the RTI Act. In this case also, he has sent us his written submissions dated 7.12.2016, in which he states that the Respondents were required to justify invocation of Section 8 (1) (d) to deny the information, which they have not done. He also states that the FAA did not give him a personal hearing before disposing of his appeal. He has cited the judgment dated 16.12.2015 of the Supreme Court in RBI vs. J. N. Mistry & Ors. and has stated that in paragraph 64 of the above judgment, the Court observed that PIOs, under the guise of one exception or another under Section 8, had evaded the general public from getting their hands on rightful information. The Respondents stated that the disclosure required as per Section 4 (1) (b) is subject
to the provisions of Section 8 and reiterated their decision to deny the information under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act as its disclosure would harm their competitive position in the market. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. In so far as the first application on File No. 2006 is concerned, we note that the information sought at point No. 1 of the RTI application is regarding the action taken by the Respondents on certain letters addressed by the Appellant to them. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to provide to him a gist of the action taken on his letters dated 30.10.2014, 18.11.2014, 28.4.2015 and 5.6.2015, based on the records of the public authority. The information sought at point No. 2, though regarding the notings etc. concerning the letters of the Appellant, relates to the transfer of his son. Such information cannot be provided to a third party, even if the third party happens to be the father of the employee, without a proper authorization from the employee concerned. We had taken note of this fact in our order No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000374 (plus three files) dated 1.10.2015, disposing of four appeals of the Appellant, seeking information, inter alia, regarding the processing of the transfer of his son. In that case, we had directed the Respondents to provide the information subject to the Appellant submitting an authorization letter from his son for the purpose. The Appellant alleged that while a large number of persons have been transferred by the Respondents, his son has not been transferred despite compelling grounds for his transfer. The Respondents, on the other hand, stated that the Appellant s son has been absent from duty since December 2015. There are two vigilance cases against him. Their communications sent to him, including at the address of the Appellant,
have been returned undelivered. The Appellant claimed that there was no case against his son. The Commission cannot sit in judgment over the issue of the vigilance cases, mentioned by the Respondents. However, we cannot ignore the additional submissions, made by the Respondents today, regarding the absence of the employee and their inability to get in touch with him. In view of this additional information, we would refrain from directing the Respondents to provide the information on point No. 2 of the RTI application even on the basis of submission of an authorization from his son by the Appellant. The Respondents cannot be required to check the authenticity of an authorization given by an employee, with whom they have been unable to get in touch, as submitted by them. The CPIO should provide the information on point No. 1 of the RTI application, as directed above, free of charge, within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. 5. We now come to the submissions of the two parties concerning the RTI application on File No. 2007. In this context, we note that in our order No. CIC/SH/A/2014/000986 (plus ten files) dated 1.6.2015, we had held that disclosures under the Section 4 (1) (b) are subject to the exemptions under Section 8. In the above context, we agree with the Respondents that disclosure of the rules, circulars regarding the powers exercised by their executives, would compromise their internal decision making procedures, thereby harming their competitive position in the market. Therefore, we uphold their decision to deny the information on points No. 2 and 3 under Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act. However, in response to point No. 1, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant only such information as is already available in the public domain. The CPIO should comply with our above directive,
within twenty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The information should be provided free of charge. 6. We also take this opportunity to recall to the FAA that he should give a personal hearing to the Appellants requesting for the same before disposing of their appeals to him. 7. With the above directions and observations, the two appeals are disposed of. 8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. Sd/- (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar