refusal of records under 8(1)(e) after access to the records and inspection

[N.Santhanam]

CIC allowed my second appeal on non disclosure of information by the PIO under the shelter that the records are missing or not traceable and directed the PIO to file a criminal compalint with the police station and to provide a copy.
of the 14 information sought the bank file a complaint on one information and sent a compliances to CIC. when this was complianed to CIC the CIC had responded that the bank has complied and the file is closed.
Upon this an another RTI was made before seeking the compliances report and the action taken on those who are responsible for missing files. The PIO responded in a single statement that he had complied with the CIC order and no access to the records were given. Appeal to FAA was allowed and accordingly access to the records were given on 15th may 2012. i flew from gulf for inspection and the bank had not taken any steps to provide all the records except a few.
Given records were inspected and the copies were sought. the bank had replied that these documents copies cannot be provided under sect 8 (1)(e). the follwoing are the grounds to agitate2.
1. the records provided are the one which is said to be missing and not traceable by the bank and on which the criminal complaint was lodged. for not providing these records under previous RTI , which is in exsitance, amounts to malafide intention of refusal of records punishable under sect 20
2. this is the information related to the account of the company who defaulted the payment and the debts are fastened and i am now treated as debtor and the account statement is already in the court and given and the copy is circulated to all and hence the information related to this account cannot be under sec 8(1)(e)
3. having raised the fiduciary can i insist the bank to provide an affidavit that these informations are personal of the company and i am not related to
4. Do i knock the doors of the CIC by second appeal or complaint
5. there are very serious documents seen from the inspection which the bank is afraid of that their irregularities and collussions stands exposed.

I REQUEST THAT I MAY BE GUIDED WITH THE READERS EXPERT VIEW. THERE IS A FRAUD AND COLLUSION WHICH IS EXPOSED PARTIALLY AND I AM TRYING TO LAY MY HAND ON THE REST

[jetley]

Sponsorer

You can also add following grounds -
1. PIO has failed to explain (through cogent reasons) in his decision, how the exemption invoked under the quoted subsection of section 8, is applied to your case, and hence he should supply the information.
2. Exemption u/s 8, even in cases where correctly applied, is not absolute, and wherever larger public interest is involved, as in the instant case, information otherwise exempt also becomes disclosable u/s 8(2)

The decisions attached with this post will give you useful citations for your appeal

Also, you may peruse - Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000309/SG/12557 dt. 26 May 2011 wherein -
"The argument raised by the PIO to justify the denial of information on the basis of Section 8(1)(h) of the
RTI Act appears to be nothing more than a mere apprehension on her part. The PIO has failed to produce
or place reliance on any cogent evidence or material before the Commission on the basis of which she can
establish that disclosure of information would impede the prosecution of offenders. In other words, the
PIO has failed to discharge the burden placed upon her under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act to prove that
the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act was justified. Moreover, this Commission
is unable to understand how lack of evidence against a person can be used by another person against
whom evidence has in fact been found leading to filing of charge sheet against the latter. On this basis, the
Commission rejects the contention of the PIO that the information sought was exempted under Section
8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The PIO has not been able justify how disclosing the information would impede
the process of prosecution of offenders.
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as available on record on
queries 05 and 06 to the Appellant before 20 June 2011"

[jps50]

For missing record please peruse:

lost/missing records:
RTI INDIA- Right to Information - Uncategorized - Blogs

For section 8.1.e [fiduciary relation] please refer:

Sec 8:
http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/...decisions.html

Since you appear to be guarantor/director etc, section 8.1.e cannot be invoked against you. You are connected to this account and hence you have every right to access all the information relating to it, including internal notes, correspondence, third party information relied by bank from inception till date of your application.

Please also refer attachment. Once if you can prima facie show that there is fraud, the entire information should be revealed in public interest. Please refer attachment also.

Please also refer following judgement dated 30-08-2010 in

HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C)


1. TREESA IRISH, W/O.MILTON LOPEZ, Vs 1. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER and others,