Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 843 (KAR)

Syndicate Bank, Manipal v. Jayalaxmi

2015-08-03

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The learned counsel for the respondent seeks time to file objections. The instant petition is of the year 2011 and the consideration to be made is only the grievance or otherwise relating to the order impugned at Annexure-'A' on the legal issues, which has been raised in this petition. There is no factual determination required. Therefore, the adjournment to file objections is rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. 3. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 19.8.2011 passed by respondent No. 2, impugned at Annexure-A' to the petition. Respondent No. 1 herein at the first instance had filed an application seeking information from the Public Information Officer of the petitioner Bank. The information sought was rejected by the Information Officer against which an appeal was filed to the First Appellate Authority, who has also rejected the information sought under the application. The Information Officer and the Appellate Authority have while declining the information referred to Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, indicating their disability to furnish such information. It is against such decision taken by the Information Officer and the Appellate Authority of the petitioner Bank, respondent No. 1 approached respondent No. 2 in appeal in CIS/SM/A/2011/000001/SG/14171. Respondent No. 2 by the order impugned has rejected the contention of the petitioner herein and while allowing the appeal has directed the Public Information officer of the petitioner to provide the complete information to respondent No. 1 herein before 10.9.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while taking me through the papers has at the outset referred to the application made by respondent No. 1 which is available at Annexure-B to the petition. It would be appropriate to extract the nature of information that has been sought under the said application, as it would be easy to appreciate the nature of the information that has been sought and in that light to decide as to whether respondent No. 2 was justified in passing the order directing the information to be furnished. The details of information sought is as follows: "1. Names, designation, branch of the employees/officers working in Karnataka State, who are under Suspension from the services of your bank as on date. 2. Names, designation, branch of the employees/officers of your bank working in Karnataka State, who are issued with charge sheet as on date." 5. The details of information sought is as follows: "1. Names, designation, branch of the employees/officers working in Karnataka State, who are under Suspension from the services of your bank as on date. 2. Names, designation, branch of the employees/officers of your bank working in Karnataka State, who are issued with charge sheet as on date." 5. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is not an employee of the petitioner nor is she having any relationship with the petitioner. Therefore, essentially, if respondent No. 1 is seeking such information, there should be an element of public interest to seek for such information. If in that light, the rejection order made by the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority is kept in view, they have taken into consideration, the nature of information that has been sought which would relate to the information of the persons working under the petitioner Bank, with whom the relationship of employer and employee subsists and in that light they have indicated that the personal information of such employees, when there is a fiduciary relationship, cannot be disclosed. 6. The respondent No. 2 while passing the impugned order having referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court has thereafter arrived at a conclusion that such a reason as assigned by the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority would not be justified and has held that the information as sought is from a public authority, who is undertaking public functions and therefore, such information is to be provided. Such reasoning as rendered by respondent No. 2 at the outset is erroneous. Apart from the nature of information being sought, being too general without even restricting to any period, the information if disclosed and if some employee has been dismissed or discharged, such personal information of the employee without there being public interest, would harm the reputation of such person. 7. In fact, the opinion that has presently expressed by me is also fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In fact, the opinion that has presently expressed by me is also fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board Of Secondary Education And Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyayand Others reported in, (2011) 8 SCC 497 had an occasion to consider the issue relating to the fiduciary relationship in the light of the provision contained in 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and has arrived at the conclusion that the indiscriminate and impractical demands or the directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information would be counterproductive and also cannot be considered a public information. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken into consideration the unnecessary work that would be involved to the Public Information Officer when such information is sought indiscriminately. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also an occasion to consider the similar question in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Informahon Commissioner and Others reported in, (2013) 1 SCC 212 and also in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Co-Op. Bank Ltd. And Others v. State Of Kerala And Others, AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 437. In both the said cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case in the Central Board Of Secondary Education And Another and has thereafter arrived at a conclusion that such information relating to fiduciary relationship cannot be disclosed and the same, is not the purport of the Act. 8. Having noticed the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the nature of information that has been sought, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 was not justified in directing that the information as sought for by respondent No. 1, be provided. Hence, the order dated 19.8.2011 at Annexure-A stands quashed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.