CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GEN. MANAGER versus C.S. SHYAM & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 31-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 7 S.C.R. 741 
CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GEN. MANAGER 
A 
v. 
C.S. SHYAM & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009) 
AUGUST 31, 2017 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.I 
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 80) and 6 - Exemption 
·from disclosure of information .- Application u/s. 6 by employee to 
B 
the Public Information Officer of the Bank seeking in.formation 
C 
regarding trans.fer and posting of the entire clerical staff - Rejected 
by Public Jn.formation Officer and Chi(ff Public Information Officer 
whereas allowed by the Central Information Commission and the 
High Court - On appeal, held: Information sought by employee, of 
individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature, 
it was exempted from being disclosed u/s. 80) and neither any larger 
D 
public interest is involved - Application rightly rejected by Public 
Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas 
wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the 
High Court - Thus, order passed by the High Court and Central 
Information Commission set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The information sought by respondent No.I-Bank 
employee, of individual employees working in the Bank regarding 
· their transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff, was personal 
E 
in nature; it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 
F 
S(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and neither respondent 
· No.I disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest 
involved in seeking such information of the individual employee 
and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information 
Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any 
larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent 
G 
No.I. In view thereof the application made by respondent No.I 
under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, 
therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and 
Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the 
H 
741 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Central Information Commission and the High Court. Thus, the 
order of the High Court and Central Information Commission is 
set aside and the orders passed by Public Information Officer 
and the Chief Public Information Officer are restored. [Paras 
14-16) [745-C-GJ 
B 
,Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central In.formation 
Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 212: [ 2012) 8 
SCR 1097; R.K. Jain v. Union of India & Am: (2013) 
14 SCC 794: [2013] 5 SCR 411 - relied on. 
c 
Case Law Reference 
[2012) 8 SCR1097 
[2013) 5 SCR 411 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 14 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.22 of 
D 
2009. 
E 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2007 passed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court ofKerala in Writ Appeal No.2100 
of2007. 
Naveen R. Nath, Adv. for the Appellant. 
R.C. Kaushik, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against 
the final judgment and order dated 20.09 .2007 passed by the High Court 
F 
of Kerala at Emakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2100 of2007 whereby the 
High Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and 
upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition 
filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of the Central 
Information Commission holding that the appellant must provide the 
G 
information sought by respondent No.I herein under the Right to 
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 
H 
2. Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate the controversy 
involved in appeal. 
CANARA BANK REP. BY ITS DY. GEN. MANAGER v. C.S. 
743 
SHYAM & ANOTHER [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
3. The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It has a branch in 
A 
District Malappuram in the State of Kerala. Respondent No. I, at the 
relevant time, was working in the said Branch as a clerical staff. 
4. On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an application to 
the Public Information Officer of the appellant-Bank under Section 6 of 
the Act and sought information regarding transfer and posting of the 
B 
entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to 31.07 .2006 in all the branches of 
the appellant-Bank. 
5. The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to 
various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with 
regard to individual employees. This informat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.