Right To Information Act

The following Information cannot be provided under the provisions of the Act:
1. The information regarding details of payment of monthly salary of the employees cannot be provided in the absence of specific period. Not only the volume of information would be huge but it also amounts to diversion of resources u/s 7(9) of the Act.
2. The particulars of employees against whom action was initiated by CVC/CBI cannot be given as it amounts to invasion of privacy u/s 8(1) (j) of the Act.
3. Particulars of loanee, name of the Branch of the Bank, Branch Manager etc. being third party information, cannot be provided.
4. The information regarding details of companies to whom duty of valuation is given by different branches of bank, cannot be given as it is exempted u/s 8(1) (d) being commercial confidence.
5. Details of settlement proposals cannot be given because the volume of information is huge and it amounts to diversion of resources u/s 7(9) of the Act.
6. Details of outsourcing agencies cannot be provided as it is exempted u/s 8(1) (d) of the Act.
7. Names of the employees getting highest salary/lowest salary cannot be provided being personal information.
8. Name of the branch of the bank whose Traveling expenses is the highest may not be given, as it affects the competitive position of a bank.
9. Name of the employees getting highest TA/DA cannot be provided being personal information.

PS. Reconfirm, before disposal of the application.

RTI CANNOT BE USED FOR BANK DEALINGS

A person or a company and registered owner of a property cannot have access to information pertaining to bank's information under RTI when the said property has already been mortgaged by another person or company.

Recently, Central Information Commission (CIS) has held that an applicant cannot have access to information regarding a bank's transaction under RTI, as they have to maintain the secrecy of the transaction.
A company, under RTI Act, sought a certified copy of a title deeds of a property mortgaged in bank's favour by another company. The CPIO denied on the grounds that it is personal information having no relationship with any public activity and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. The bank maintained that the title deeds were deposited by the mortgagor to create equitable mortgage.And providing copies of mortgage related documents to a 3rd party could affect the interests of the mortgagor. As bank has to maintain secrecy of transactions of its customers, therefore the information could not be furnished.
The applicant company had claimed that they could not be termed as outsiders or third party because they are the registered owners of the property in question. The CPIO had told them that the said information could be obtained from Sub Registrar office. The bank had stated that by virtue of equitable mortgage, they alone are entitled to have this information.
The applicant company appeal was dismissed by the Information Commissioner.