Shri Bharat Devji Dedhia H.No.24/3, Saptashri Co. Op Society Daftry Road Malad (E) Mumbai 400 097 filed an RTI application dt.27.10.08 with the CPIO, O/o CPMG, Mumbai requesting for information against 6 points relating to Account No.653486, 653933 and 679200. The CPIO replied on 16.3.09 denying the information u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.17.4.09 with the Appellate Authority (copy not in file). The Appellate Authority replied on 8.5.09 stating that as per section 11 of the RTI Act, the nominee was addressed to give his consent to reveal the information related to him but till date he has not provided the consent. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.8.8.09 before CIC stating that information sought is related to the account of his minor daughter and is required to unearth wrong committed by the nominee in both the accounts.
The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2009. Shri Daya Shukl, ASPos representing the Appellate Authority represented the Public Authority The Applicant was tried over phone but no contact was established
Decision
The Respondent submitted a rejoinder during the hearing which stated that the Appellate Authority, after going through the records, found that the Account Nos.653486, 653933 & 679200, about which the Appellant is seeking information, are not related to the Appellant in any way (and are not in the name of the Appellant’s minor daughter as contended by him in his second appeal) but these three accounts have been opened by different persons jointly, namely Shri Narshi N.Savla and Chetna B.Dedhia (both around 40 years old and not minors) on 31.7.2003, 7.8.2003 and 6.8.04 respectively. He added that after the death of the depositors, the due amount was paid to the nominee Shri Rajesh N.Savla on 8.3.08 and as the information sought relates to third party i.e. Shri Rajesh N.Savla, his consent for disclosure of information was sought on 2.1.09 but the third party did not reply. The Respondent also added that the Applicant is misleading the Commission by stating that the information sought relates to his daughter who is still minor whereas the records available with them proves that the said claim of the Appellant is false and misleading as is also evident from the Mrs. Chetna Bharat’s Death Certificate dt.29.12.07 issued by the B.M.C.Mumbai indicating that Mrs. Chetana Bharat died on 8.11.06. The Respondent produced copies of relevant documents to substantiate his arguments.
The Commission is unable to understand the reasons for the Appellant misleading the Commission by distorting facts and declaring that the Accounts belong to his minor daughter when, in reality, they belong to third parties who are in no way related to him. One can only assume that the Appellant is seeking the information to pursue his own personal agenda. In the light of this observation, and also since the information sought relating to Accounts, date of maturity, amounts redeemed etc. is personal information (Mr. Rajesh Savla), the disclosure of which has no relation with any public activity or interest, the Commission denies the information to the Appellant.
The Commission directs the CPIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day (Maximum Rs.25000/-) should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period prescribed in the Act. The response should reach the Commission by 10.11.09
