Delhi High Court
Rekha Chopra vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur on 27 August, 2014
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.08.2014
+ W.P.(C) 5478/2014
REKHA CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Ruchira.
For the Respondent : Mr Rajiv Aggarwal and Mr S. Sethi.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)
CM No.10876/2014
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5478/2014
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning an
order dated 13.06.2014 passed by the Central Information Commissioner
(hereinafter referred to as 'CIC'), whereby the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against an order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the First Appellate
Authority had been rejected. The order dated 03.04.2013 had in turn
rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 11.02.2013 passed by
respondent bank's Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred
as 'CPIO'). By the said order, the CPIO of respondent bank refused to
provide the information sought by the petitioner in respect of its customer
inter alia on the ground that the same was held by the bank in a fiduciary
capacity and was exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act').
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 18.01.2013, the petitioner applied
under the RTI Act to the CPIO of the respondent bank seeking the
following information with respect to Manraj Charitable Trust - a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860:-
"a) Entire record pertaining to opening of the Bank Account by
MCT including the a/c opening form.
b) All subsequent documents, resolutions, authority letters,
submitted with the Bank.
c) The actual date of submission/receipt of letter dated 14/8/99 in
and by the bank."
3. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another application on 22.01.2013
seeking further information. By its order dated 11.02.2013, the CPIO of the
respondent bank declined to provide the said information on the ground that
information pertaining to its customers was exempt from the provisions of
the RTI Act by virtue of clauses (d), (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI
Act. Aggrieved by the denial of the said information, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was also
dismissed by an order dated 03.04.2013. The decision of the First Appellate
Authority was carried in appeal before the CIC.
4. By the impugned order, the CIC accepted the submissions of the
respondent bank that the information in respect of its customers was
exempt form the RTI Act as the same was held by the bank in a fiduciary
capacity and, accordingly, rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
was the secretary of Manraj Charitable Trust and as an office bearer was
entitled to information relating to the said Trust. It was further submitted
that Manraj Charitable Trust was a charitable institution and, therefore,
larger public interest would warrant disclosure of information by the
respondent bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v.
Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 to contend that even
information held in fiduciary capacity can be disclosed by a Competent
Authority if a larger public interest so warrants.
6. The respondent bank claimed that as per its records, the petitioner
was neither reflected as a Secretary of the Trust nor was authorised to
operate the bank accounts. It was further stated that there were disputes
pending between the petitioner and her relatives. And, the information
sought by the petitioner was not for any larger public interest but,
apparently, to assist her in the litigation pending between the petitioner and
her family members.
7. The controversy raised in the present petition is whether a bank is
obliged to disclose information pertaining to its customers in response to an
application made under the RTI Act.
8. The Bank, while dealing with its customers, acts in various
capacities. Undisputedly, the relationship between a customer and a banker
requires trust, good faith, honesty and confidence. Black's law dictionary
defines fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence
reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." Fiduciary
relationship in law is ordinarily a confidential relationship; one which is
founded on the trust and confidence. In this view, a banker would
undoubtedly, stand in a fiduciary capacity in respect of transactions and
information provided by its customers.
9. The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed
Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 examined the term "fiduciary
relationship" in context of Section 8 of the RTI Act and held as under:-
"The term "fiduciary relationship" is used to describe a
situation or transaction where one person places complete
confidence in another person in regard to his affairs, business
or transactions. This aspect has been discussed in some detail
in the judgment of this Court in the case of Central Board of
Secondary Education. Section 8(1)(e), therefore, carves out a
protection in favour of a person who possesses information in
his fiduciary relationship. This protection can be negated by
the competent authority where larger public interest warrants
the disclosure of such information, in which case, the authority
is expected to record reasons for its satisfaction. Another very
significant provision of the Act is 8(1)(j). In terms of this
provision, information which relates to personal information,
the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public
activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted
category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is,
therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory
exemption which must operate as a rule and only in
exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for
reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of
larger public interest."
10. The records of the bank do not indicate the petitioner to be a
secretary of the said Trust or its authorized officer. Thus, the bank has
treated the petitioner as a stranger, and in my view, rightly so. The
respondent bank is thus not obliged to provide any information to the
petitioner in respect of the account of the said trust.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has certain pending disputes with regard to
the affairs of Manraj Charitable Trust and a suit (being CS(OS)
No.3203/2012) is stated to have been filed by the petitioner in this Court in
her capacity as Secretary of the Trust in question. In this view, the
submission of the petitioner that the respondent bank is liable to disclose
the information sought in larger public interest, also cannot be accepted.
12. The present petition is, accordingly, without merit and is dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
AUGUST 27, 2014
MK
