Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Yadav and Vivek Agarwal, JJ. entertained a writ appeal which challenged the impugned order by the Authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The main contention raised in the appeal was related to the order which declined to divulge the information related to the bank statement of appellant’s brother in respect of the Pension Savings Account appellant’s deceased father.
The factual matrix of the case was, appellant’s deceased father R.V. Gupta nominated his other son Devendra Gupta in his Pensions Savings Account, the appellant wanted to inquire about the said nomination which was declined by the Authorities being personal in nature and not in public interest. The same order passed by the Authorities was upheld by the learned Single Judge on similar grounds, aggrieved by which the appellant had filed the writ appeal.
Petitioner contended that he had equal rights to know the details about his father’s Pension Account; he further relied upon Section 8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 which confers general rule of succession in males.
The respondent argued that the said contentions had no substance when tested on the anvil of the provisions of the Act of 2005, and particularly the provisions contained under Sections 8 and 11 which caused an exception. And the fact that the father of the Appellant before his death had nominated one of his sons as “nominee”, as a result whereof, the Bank was in a fiduciary relationship with said “nominee” which created a bar for divulging any information to the third party. Hence, the status of the Appellant before the Bank was that of a third party qua the “nominee”.
The Court upheld the judgment of Single Judge and stated that though contentions of petitioner carried some weight in a suit for succession certificate, but had no place in the Act of 2005. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.[Narendra Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1008, decided on 16-05-2019]
