Live Law: New Delhi: Thursday, July 25, 2024.
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal against a single-judge bench's order upholding the Central Information Commission's (CIC) refusal to grant information to a man pertaining to a bank locker of his deceased father under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The appellant Ravi Prakash Soni had said that his father had hired a bank locker at the Sardarshahar Branch of Bank of Baroda in Rajasthan's Churu district.
Following his father's demise in 2011, while the bank locker remained active and operational till the date of filing of the RTI application, Soni–being the legal heir of his deceased father, had filed an online RTI application seeking specific information concerning the locker. The information was denied on the ground that it was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
After he was denied information, Soni subsequently moved the CIC in a complaint. Two hearings took place–in August 2023 which he could not attend due to medical reasons and in January this year which was attended by Soni's authorized representative i.e., his son.
Soni claimed that during the hearing the Commissioner (presiding over the case on behalf of CIC), refused to entertain the submissions of Soni's authorized representative. Soni then moved the single judge bench of the HC claiming a violation of principles of natural justice, which went on to dismiss his plea on March 20 this year.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in its July 18 order found no reason to differ with the single judge bench's opinion which had while rejecting Soni's plea had said that the reasoning given by the CIC while disposing of Soni's complaint is not perverse and does not call for interference.
On the application of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act based on which the information was refused, the division bench said that Section 8(1) is a non-obstante clause which would “ordinarily have an overriding effect on the remaining provisions” Act adding that the “provisions have to be read strictly”.
“Once there are disputes pending between the legal heirs of the late father of the appellant, the bank could not play the role of an adjudicator or identify itself with any party, lest it be blamed for partisanism. That apart, the appellant has ample efficacious and alternate remedy to summon any such information in the court of law, as and when the need arises, in accordance with law. Thus, the refusal for divulging the information so sought cannot be faulted,” the HC said.
The bench further said that Soni appeared to be seeking some information relating to the bank locker held by his late father, while disputes were pending between the legal heirs adding that there “cannot possibly be any public interest in that, much less any larger public interest”.
On the term “larger public interest”, the bench said that it has an impact on a “broad section of the society” and not any individual interests or conflicts. It however said that the term cannot be defined in a “straight jacket formula” and has to be interpreted on a “case to case basis”.
Rejecting the appeal, the bench said that Soni had not been able to demonstrate what that larger public interest would be in his case.
Section 8(1)(e) states that even in a case where a fiduciary relationship exists unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, such information can be refused.
Meanwhile, Section 8(1)(j) also is an exemption from disclosure of information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless the Competent Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.
Before the division bench Soni–who was represented by his son, an advocate, had argued that it was not disputed that Soni's deceased father had a locker with Bank of Baroda. It was contended that the appellant after the death of his father had a fiduciary relationship with the bank, and hence he was entitled to information sought by him.
On this contention, the division bench said that the fiduciary relationship existed between the bank and the late father of the appellant “alone”.
The appellant had further contended that while rejecting his plea the CIC in its order did not mention the name of the nominees or the heirs of the locker holder, whose interests were allegedly going to be affected.
He also said that his arguments were not recorded in the CIC order amounting to a grave violation of principles of natural justice which the single-judge bench failed to consider. The single judge, despite recognizing that he was the son of the deceased locker holder, enquired into whether the information sought was in the larger public interest or would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, Soni contended.
On this contention, the division bench said, the reasoning rendered by the authorities and the Single Judge bench did not suffer from “any such vice”.
“Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has already dealt with this issue too alongwith the merits of the matter and has passed the impugned judgement. We do not find any reason to differ with the opinion rendered by the learned Single Judge on this issue. In fact, the orders contain clear and precise justification for refusal from divulging information as observed above. In these circumstances, we reject the said contention too,” the bench underscored.
Case title: RAVI PRAKASH SONI v CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS.
Counsel for the appellant: Appellant-in-person along with his son.
Counsel for the respondents: Arun Aggarwal, Shivam Saini and Praful Rawat
.JPG)
.JPG)
