Dear Veeresha I would request you to kindly re-read the decisions of IC(PB) and IC(T). It appears that in IC(T)'s matter 8(1)(j) exemption was not agitated by the PIO - and hence not considered by him. Thus there is no conflict between their decisions (in legal parlance this is known as being "per incuram").
IC(PB)'s decision only covers the case where the PIO takes the stand that personal information is contained within the DE report. She has therefore strictly gone by 8(1)(j) especially since the Appellant could not establish his "larger public interest" in seeking the information. Badly prepared Appellants who appear in CIC result in poor orders which queer the pitch for everyone else. I am sure that those group members who follow our "responsible RTI" methods will not be affected by IC(PB)'s orders when it comes to seeking DEs from PSU Banks. Its all in the drafting - especially since we carefully consider and anticipate all exemptions available to the PIO - such as 8(1)(j) - prior to filing our RTIs. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], veeresh bellur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Information sought by me from Canara Bank is in respect of completed Departmental Enquiry. Smt. PB has issued a blanket ban on providing information relating to Departmental Enquiries. All information relating to DE are being denied by Public Sector Banks based on the order of PB. > > B.H. VEERESHA > MAHITHI HAKKU ADHYAYANA KENDRA > 54, 17TH CROSS, M C LAYOUT > VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040 > TEL.NO. 9448704693 >
