Central Information Commission
Nimish S Agarwal vs Banking Division on 14 September, 2017
Central lnformation Commission, New Delhi
File No. ClCl MP I Al2O1 5/000326
Fi le No. ClCl MP I Cl2O1 5/000037
File No. CICNS/C|2O13I000684
Richt to lnformation Act-20O5-Under Section (18) / (19)
Name of the Appellant Shri Shailesh Gandhi
(Fite No. ClCl MP I N2O1 5/000326)
Name of the Complainant Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde
(Fi le No. ClCl MP I ClzO 15/000037)
Name of the Complainant Shri Nimish S. Agarwal
(File No. CICN S lctzo1 3/000684)
Name of the Pubtic CDR Celt, lDBl Tower,
Authority/Respondent Mumbai - 400005
Date of first hearing 24th May 2o16 Date of second hearing 12th July 2016 Date of decision 1 6th Septemb er 2016
This matter arises out of the fottowing RTI apptications:
(i) RTI apptication dated 30.10.2014 fited by Shri Shaitesh Gandhi to the CPIO, CDR Cet[, seeking information on four points regarding the total expenditure incurred by the CDR system and how much of it was financed by the pubtic sector banks and lDBl, various audits of the CDR system, finat CDR packages approved between 1.4.2012- to 31.3.2014 and in how many cases, a pubtic sector bank that had a negative mandate at the time of finat package had to support the CDR package, where supermajority, as defined by the CDR Master Circutar, was atready reached.
(i i) RTI apptication dated 3.7.2013 fited by Shri Nimish S. Agarwal, seeking copies of a[[ documents retating to the proceedings submitted bY the bank, Company and the proceedings undertaken by CDR in the case of M/s LaxmiVentures (lndia) Ltd.
(iii) RTI apptication dated 5.11.2014 fited by Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde, seeking information on seven points regarding copy of the order i circular / notification issued by the Ministry of Finance or Govt. of lndia or RBl, by which the CDR Cett was estabtished and various aspects of functioning of the Cett.
2. ln att the three cases, the CDR Cet[ responded to state that it was neither estabtished nor constituted by or under the constitution or any other law made either by the Partiament or State Legistature and it was also not created by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government. lt was further stated that as per the Master circutar dated2.7.2012 issued by the RBl, CDR was a setf empowered body and the operating and other cost of the CDR Cett were shared by alt financial institutions and banks. lt was atso stated that the CDR was neither owned, controtted or substantiatty financed by direct or indirect funds provided by the appropriate government. Hence, the CDR Cett was not a 'pubtic authority' as defined in "Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005." ln view of the above, the CDR expressed their inabitity to entertain the requests for information.
3. Not satisfied with the response received from the CDR, shri shaitesh Gandhi fited an appeat dated 20.12.7014 lo the Commission, praying for direction to the Chairman of the CDR Cett to provide the information sought by him and to appoint PIO and FM immediatety. He stated that the CDR was a pubtic authority as defined by section 2 (h) (i) and (ii)' lt has been formed by a circutar issued by the RBI -No. BP. 8C.68/21.04.13212002'03 dated 5.2.2003 which stated, inter atia, that the initiat cost in operating the CDR mechanism inctuding the CDR Cett woutd be met by the lDBl for one year and then from contribution from the financial institutions and banks in the core group @ of Rs' 50 takhs each and other institutions and banks @ of Rs' 5 takhs each' Shri Gandhi stated that the CDR Cett, created by an RBI Circular, has no independent [ega[ status. Despite having thirty eight pubtic sector banks as members and onty fourteen private sector banks, it ctaims an independent status. Five of its seven core group members are pubtic sector emptoyees and thirteen of its nineteen emptoyees are getting their salaries from pubtic sector banks. lt is not audited by anyone and refuses to be accountabte to citizens. As per the RBI circutar, the initiat finance was provided by lDBl, a pubtic sector bank, and more than l5Yo of the subsequent finance is from pubtic sector banks and institutions. lt is atso using the office space provided by lDBl. Thus it is controtted as we[[ as substantiatty financed by the Government. lt does not appear to have any tegal, structure and despite being created by an RBI circutar, ctaims a virtual presence without accountabitity to anyone. lf such an argument is accepted, atl government organizations coutd create such virtual cetts and deny information and accountabitity.
4. Shri Nimish S. Agarwal fited a comptaint dated 13.8.2013 to the Commission, stating that the information sought by him under the RTI Act had not been disclosed.
5. Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde fited a comptaint dated 22.1.2015 to the Commission, stating that five out of the seven core members of the CDR Cett betong to pubtic sector enterprises / banks. The CDR Cet[ consists of employees of various pubtic sector banks who continue to draw their sataries from the pubtic sector banks and it is funded by the government controtted pubtic sector banks. The CDR Cet[ continues to utitise the lDBl tower owned by the lDBl, which is itsetf a pubtic authority. The administrative and other costs of the cetl are shared by at[ financial institutions. Reconstructing of loans is an extensjon of the banking business, which atso means that the CDR Cetl has to be in the banking business to be abte to have an independent existence. lf CDR Cett's contention that it is not a pubtic authority is accepted, it woutd mean that it is neither accountable to Partiament nor audited by anyone. He prayed for brining the CDR Cet[ under the ambit of RTI Act.
.member
6. On the recommendation of a singte bench that considered the matter initiatty, the CIC constituted a division bench comprising the fotlowing lnformation Commissioners to consider it:
(i) Shri Sharat Sabharwat.
(ii) Smt. Manjula Prasher.
i
Hearine on 24.5.2016
7. The first hearing by the division bench took ptace on 24.5.2016. The Appettant, Shri Shaitesh Gandhi was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. The Comptainants, S/Shri Madhurkar Kukde and Nimish S. Agarwal were not present. 0n behatf of the Respondents, Shri V. Bhaskar, DGM, Shri Kantharoopan, AGM, CDR Cett and Shri Rajesh Kulkarni, General Manager, lDBl Bank were present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai.
8. The Appettant, Shri Shaitesh Gandhi stated that the CDR Cett is both substantiatty financed and controtled by the government. A majority of its core group members are from the pubtic sector banks. The CDR ctaims that it has no lega[ status and they continue to function as a club deciding matters concerning thousands of crores of pubtic funds. Since majority of the core group members and thirteen of nineteen emptoyees are getting their salaries from pubtic sector banks and since atl pubtic servants have to fottow government poticies, it is ctear that the CDR is controtted by pubtic servants and in turn by the government. lt was set up pursuant to a circutar issued by the RBI and its expenditure for the first year was borne by the lDBl. A substantia[ share of its funding by the pubtic sector banks amounts to indirect financing by the appropriate government. The government has provided thousands of crores for recapitatisation of banks and this is atl public money. Therefore, citizens have the right to know how the CDR functions.
9. With reference to the contention of the Appettant that the CDR was a body trotted by the government on account of presence of five out of seven in the core group, who were public servants getting their sataries from the government and thirteen out of nineteen employees were atso pubtic servants, the Respondents stated that the core group members or the emptoyees did not determine the character or nature of the contro[ exercised by the government. What was more retevant was the control of the government in the management or functioning of the cetl than the number of pubtic seryants working in it. Further, bank officers are considered as pubtic servants onty for a certain timited purpose. They reiterated the contents of their repties to the RTI apptications. They atso stated that CDR is neither a sovereign nor performs any sovereign functions. lt is a non'statutory mechanism set up under the aegis of the RBl, and is a votuntary system functioning based on the Debtor - Creditor Agreement (DCA) and lnter-Creditor Agreement (lCA). lt is the above agreements that provide the [ega[ basis of the CDR mechanism. The 'appropriate government' as defined under the RTI Act means in retation to a pubtic authority, which is estabtished, constituted, owned or controtted or substantiatty financed by funds provided directty or indirectty (i) By the Central Government or the Union Territory Administration (ii) By the State Government. The appropriate government as defined above did not constitute or exercise any control in the management or affairs of the CDR and does not provide any kind of financial assistance for the functioning of the CDR. The Respondents also cited the Supreme Court judgment in Thatappalam Service co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Kerata and Ors. as wetl as the CIC decision dated 18.6.2014 in Mrs. S. Booma vs. Retiance Employees Provident Fund, Mumbai.
10. The Appettant submitted that the Thatappatam case appties only to the extent of the onus to prove an organization to be a pubtic authority being on the Appettant / Complainant and reiterated his arguments as per which, CDR Cett qualifies to be a public authority under the RTI Act. He further submitted that the CIC decision in the Booma case was not retevant to the issue at hand. As per an RBI report, the CDR Cett has decided restructuring of loans, invotving the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs crores. The CDR fottows the guidetines issued by the RBI for restructuring of loans. lt sends progress reports to RBI in a structured format.
11. The Respondents stated that onty one audit of CDR has been conducted so far and it has not been an annuat exercise. No report concerning the audit was sent to the RBl. They further submitted that the initial financing invotved contribution of Rs. 50 [akhs each by the five core group members (lDBl, SBl, lClCl, Bank of Baroda and Bank of lndia). The remaining participating banks contributed Rs. 5 lakhs each. The expenses are audited by a CA appointed by the core group and report is submitted to the core group. lt is not made pubtic.
12. The Appettant referred to the Supreme Court judgment dated 16.12.2015 in RBI and Ors. vs. Jayantital N. Mistry and Ors., in which the Apex Court has uphetd the need for comptete transparency in such matters,
13. At the end of the hearing on24.5.2016, the bench came to the conctusion that the Reserve Bank of lndia shoutd also be heard to know the kind of control they exercise on CDR Cett and the type of returns received by them. Accordingty, the matter was adjourned and the Registrar was directed to schedule another hearing, wherein the RBI shoutd atso be catted to make their submissions.
#Hearing on 12.7.2016.
14. The matter came up again on 12.7.2016. The Appettant shri shaitesh Gandhi was present at the NIC Studio, Mumbai. The Comptainant, Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde was present, atong with Advocate Mandtekar, at the NIC Studio, Nagpur. The Comptainant Shri Nimish S. Agarwa[ was absent. The RBI was represented by the fotlowing: Shri Sankatp Tyagi, Legat Officer, Shri Nethaji, AGM, Ms. Deepti Agarwat, AGM and Shri Harsha, Manager. The CDR was represented by: Shri V. Bhaskar, AGM, CDR Cett, Shri Prakash Joshi, DGM, CDR Cett. Shri Rajesh Kulkarni, GM (Legat)was present on behatf of the lDBl.
15. The representatives of the RBI submitted that the CDR is a mechanism by which debt can be restructured. The scheme was introduced as per the RBI circutar dated 23.8.2001. A few more circutars were issued by the RBl, the last one in 2005. Restructuring of debt can be done through CDR or outside the framework of CDR. lt is onty a toot to facititate restructuring with the consent of the [enders and the borrowers. The CDR mechanism can be resorted to onty in the case of the accounts in which more than one bank has exposure and the total amount of [oan is more than Rs. 10 crores (reduced from Rs. 20 crores w.e.f. 10.11.2005). The decision in each case is taken by the representatives of the banks that are part of the lending group and gets approved onty when it is accepted by 75%of the lenders by vatue and 60% by number. The RBI circutar does not prescribe any returns to be submitted by the CDR. lnstead the individual banks submit returns to the RBl. The website of the CDR contains information regarding the number of cases handled. The representatives of the RBI atso stated that the sacrifice made by the bank may onty be temporary as there coutd be a turn-around in the company later on.
16. The representatives of the CDR Cett stated that CDR is a votuntary mechanism. The decisions are taken by voting by the participating banks in each case. The representative of the lDBl made a reference to paragraph 4.3.1 of the RBI circular No. 8P.8C.68121.04.13212002-03 dated 5.2.2003 which reads as fottows: "CDR witt be a non-statutory mechanism which witt be a votuntary system based on Debtor- Creditor Agreement (DCA) and lnter-Creditor Agreement (lCA)." lt is atso stated that the DCA and ICA shatl. provide the tegat basis to the CDR mechanism. The debtors shatl have to accede to the DCA, either at the time of original loan documentation or at the time of reference to the CDR. Simitarty, atl participants in the CDR mechanism through their membership of the Standing Forum shall have to enter into a tegatty binding agreement, with necessary enforcement and penal ctauses, to operate the system through laid down poticies and guidetines. The ICA signed by the creditors witt be initiatty vatid for a period of three years and subject to renewal for further three years thereafter. The representative of the lDBl further submitted that when the CDR was formed, lDBl offered a ftoor in their buitding for their work. The CDR is paying rent for the office space. The officers coming from the banks to the CDR, though drawing their sataries from the bank, do not have a pubtic authority status.
17. Speaking on behatf of Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde, Advocate Mandtekar stated that the CDR consists of representatives of banks and is used for restructuring of debts. The entire work of the CDR is carried out in terms of the Banking Regutations Act, 1949 (BRA) and the Reserve Bank of lndia Act, 1934 (RBIA). According to him, the cDR cett is owned, controtted and substantiatty for financed by the government. The BR Act defines Banking as the accepting, the purpose of tending or investment, of deposits of money from the pubtic, order or repayabte on demand or otherwise and withdrawat by cheque, draft, otherwise. Further, the Act defines Banking poticy as any poticy specified from time to time by the RBI. The cDR Cett has been set up as per an RBI circular needs a and poticy framed by the RBl. As per Section 22 of the BRA, every bank licence from the RBl. Section 17 of the RBI Act defines the business which the banks may transact. The cDR decides restructuring of debt and what kind of retief is given to the borrowers is a matter of pubtic interest because the decisions of the cDR can resutt in reduction of the rate of interest, tengthening of the repayment period and grant of additional loan. These are atl banking functions. Advocate Mandtekar atso referred to sections 17, 18, 70, 21 , 26, 27 returns.
and 2g of BRA. The Reserve Bank of lndia can ask banks to fite monthty Advocate Mandtekar stated that in view of the above, every activity of the cDR is a banking activity governed by the BRA and RBIA. The cDR cett has not been exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act under section 24. Therefore, the is controtted by the RBI and since its activities are governed by the BRA CDR Cett and RBIA, it answers the definition of a pubtic authority as any authority or body estabtished or constituted by any law made by Partiament, as [aid down in Section 2 (h) (b) of the RTI Act. Five out of seven core group members come from pubtic sector banks and the initiat financing was provided by the lDBl.
The subsequent financing comes from pubtic money from pubtic sector banks.
The
{iQi,",;. can deny the ihformation are laid down
pubtic
in Section 8 of the RTI Act and those provisions get over-ridden by larger interest, in so far as the functioning of the cDR is concerned. This is more so because the cDR has restructured debts worth Rs. 3.7 takh crores. The cDR is government.
atso a pubtic authority controtted and substantiatty financed by the
18. The Appettant shri shaitesh Gandhi stated that the onty issue before the authority. The Respondents have Commission was whether the CDR is a pubtic given no reason as to why it is not a pubtic authority. lt is a pubtic authority because it is controtted and substantiatty financed by the government. Whether disctosure of the information sought is a matter of public interest is not an issue before the Commission. He reiterated that five out of seven members of the core group and thirteen out of nineteen emptoyees are from pubtic sector banks. They cannot function outside the decisions and guidetines of the government. The CDR is atso substantiatty financed because without the satary given by the banks to the emptoyees seconded by them and the contributions made by them, it cannot function. lf att pubtic authorities can set up such bodies to escape accountabitity, no accountabitity woutd be teft in the government.
19. The representatives of the RBI stated that most of the points made by Advocate Mandtekar centred around his submission that the functions performed by the CDR are banking functions. lt needs to be noted that even private banks perform banking functions, but are not pubtic authorities. The RBI is not a constitutionat body but a tegat entity. Onty a reference to the 1934 Act is contained in the constitution. The Central Banking functions of the RBI in Chapter lll of the RBIA are different from banking' tl,f)lQR"ntioned ?0. The representative of the lDBl stated that the burden of proof in this case is on the Appettant / Complainants and they have faited to discharge this obtigation. The CDR does not sanction any loans. ln so far as sacrifice is concerned, each bank is audited by the RBl. Advocate Mandtekar reiterated the need for comptete transparency on the part of CDR.
Discussion and Decision
71. We have considered the submissions made by att the parties and woutd, in the first instance, deal with the submissions made by Advocate Mandtekar on behatf of the Comptainant, Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde, in which he appeared to suggest that the CDR answers, in every respect, the definition of a pubtic authority given in Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Nothing has been ptaced on record to estabtish that the CDR is a body set up by or under the constitution. Further, even though it was set up as per a circutar issued by the RBl, it cannot a body estabtished or constituted by a notification issued or be regarded as a the appropriate government, because RBI does not answer the order made by the definition of 'appropriate government' as contained in Section 2 (a). Advocate Mandtekar atso argued that since the functions of the CDR are connected to banking, which in turn is governed by the Banking Regutation Acl, 1949 and the Reserve Bank of lndia Act, 1934, it answers the definition of a body estabtished or constituted by a law made by the Partiament [Section 2 (h) (b)]. Even if we accept the contention of Advocate Mandlekar that the activities of CDR are retated to and governed by the provisions of the Banking Regutation Act, 1949 and the RBI Act 1934, it does not make it a body set up or constituted by a law made by Parliament. ln this context, we note that the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors. (2003) 1QSCC 733, he[d as foltows:-
"32. lvlerely because Reserve Bonk of lndia lays the banking policy in the interest of the bonking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. os provided under Section 5(d fu) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures appticabte to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certoin consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself."
Further, considering the question of whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 was bound to provide information under the RTI Act, the Supreme Court hetd as fottows in its judgment dated 7.10.2013 in Thatappatam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. ft Ors. vs. State of Kerata & Ors:-
"28. Section 2(h) exhausts the categories mentioned therein. The former part of 2(h) deals with:
(1) an authority or body or institution of setf'government established by or under the Constitution, (2) on authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted by any other law made by the Parliament, (3) an authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by any other law made by the State legislature, and (4) an authority or body or institution of self'government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government, fall in the
29. Societies, with which we are concerned, admittedly, do not above mentioned categories, becouse nane of them is either a body or institution of setf-government, established or constituted under the constitution, by law made by the Parliament, by law mode by the stote Legislature or by way of a notification issued or made by the oppropriate government."
ln view of the foregoing, the CDR does not answer the definition of pubtic authority, as mentioned at Section 2 (h) (a) to (d).
22. ln his appeat to the Commission, Shri Shaitesh Gandhi has stated that the CDR has been created by a circutar of the RBI and has no independent [ega[ status except this. However, the RBI circutar dated 23'8.2001 makes it clear that it woutd be a non-statutory mechanism and woutd be a votuntary system based on Debtor - Creditor Agreements and lnter-Creditor Agreements. Thus, the CDR draws its authority from the above agreements.
23. That brings us to Section 2 (h) (d) (i) and the submission of Shri Shaitesh Gandhi, supported by Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde, that cDR is a body controtted and substantiatty financed by funds provided by the appropriate government. ln the Thatappatam judgment, the Supreme Court stated that: "A body owned, means to have a good tegat titte ttoo it having the uttimate control In its fotd controt, finance etc."
The CDR, in our view, is not a body owned by the appropriate government, a conctusion that is reinforced by examination of the aspects of "controlted" and "substantialty financed" in the succeeding paragraphs.
74. lt has been submitted by the Appettant and the Comptainants that CDR is a body controtted by the appropriate government because five out of seven members of the core group come from the pubtic sector banks and thirteen out of the nineteen emptoyees are atso from the pubtic sector banks, drawing their sataries from their respective banks. ln the Thatappatam judgment, the Supreme Court hetd the fottowing on the aspect of control as contained in Section 2 (h) (d) (i) of the RTI Act:-
"4. of the opinion that when we test the meaning of expression We are "controlled" which figures in between the words "body owned" and "substantially financed", the control by the appropriate government must be a control of a substantiol noture. The mere 'supervision' or 'regulation' as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body o "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. ln other words just like a body owned or body substantially financed by the appropriote government, the control of the body by the appropriate government would olso be substantiol and not merely supervisory or regulatory. Powers exercised by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others under the Cooperat:ive Societies Act are only regulatory or supervisory in nature, which will not omount to dominating or interfering with the management or affairs of the society so os to be controlled. Management and control ore statutorily conferred on the lvlanagement Committee or the Board of Directors of the Society by the respective Cooperative Societies Act and not on the outhorities under the Co-operative Societies Act.
t-.
t 35, We are, therefore, of the view that the word "controlled" used in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act has to be understood in the context in which it has been used vis-a-vis a body owned or substontially financed by the appropriate government, that is the control of the body is of such a degree which amounts to substantial control over the management and affairs of the body."
Going by the above definition of 'control', it cannot be said that because of the presence of representatives of pubtic sector banks in the core group and amongst the emptoyees, the CDR is a body with substantial controt of the appropriate government on its management and affair:s. The core function of the CDR is restructuring of debts referred to it as a resutt of Debtor-Creditor Agreements. White the emptoyees of CDR may be putting up the proposats for restructuring, the core function of CDR is performed by groups, containing representatives of different banks (both pubtic sector and private) depending upon the group of tending banks in each case. This function, being performed by different groups, having a different mix of representatives of pubtic sector and private banks in each case, it cannot be stated that the appropriate government exercises substantial contro[ over the affairs of the body.
25. As regards the aspect of 'substantiat financing' by the appropriate government, it is seen that besides the initial contribution by the participating banks, the CDR atso receives from each participating bank an amount of Rs. 4 takhs per case. Taking into account the list of participating banks and the initial contribution of Rs. 50 lakhs each by the banks, that are members of the core group, and Rs. 5 lakhs each by the remaining rnembers, the share of pubtic sector banks comes to 76.84Yo approximatety. Based on the figures of ;q&I...)',contributions of Rs. 4 takhs per case by the banks, in respect of the i restructuring cases considered, the contribution made by the pubtic sector banks comes lo 68.56% and79.77% for 2013-14 and 2014'15 respectivety. ln the Thatappatam judgment, the Supreme Court hetd the fottowing:-
"38. Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc,, as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substontial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practicolly runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist."
26. ln its judgment dated 12.3.2015 in Hardicon Ltd. vs. Madan Lat [W.P.(C) 6946120111, the High Court of Delhiconsidered a decision by which the ClC, by a majority opinion, had hetd Hardicon Ltd. to be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. 61 .5% equity of Hardicon Ltd. was hetd by pubtic sector banks / undertakings and the CIC was of the view that over 61% of the equity of the company was subscribed by various banks and financia[ institutions which were funded by the Government and, therefore, Hardicon Ltd. too was indirectty funded by the appropriate Government. ln the above judgment, the High Court of Dethi hetd as fottows:-
'14. The next question to be examined is whether the petitioner is substantially financed by the appropriate Government. ln my view, this question must also be answered in the negative as there is no materiol to indicate that the petitioner has been indirectly funded by the appropriate Government. Undoubtedly, the Central Government has substantially funded the nationotized banks. However, it is equally true that the said ,ffi;:.. :rrkt haue been funded to .a significont extent by other shareholders.
l!., Concededly, the petitioner has been promoted by its shareholders as o commercial entity to render consultancy services on o commerciol basis. The petitioner is, clearly, a joint commercial venture by several entities.
15. The CtC hetd thot os 61.5% of equity of the petitioner was subscribed by government owned entities and the meet the criteria of same would substantial financing by an appropriate Government. I find it difficult to agree with the said conclusion. Admittedly, the Government - whether it be State Government or Central Government - has not provided any direct funding to the petitioner. The question whether the entity has been indirectly financed is to be determined on the facts of each case. ln this cose, there is no material to indicate any flow of funds from any government to the petitioner. ln order to hold that an entity has been indirectly financed by an appropriate Government, first of all, it fs necessary to find that the Central Government has parted with some funds for financing the outhoritylbody; and secondly, the said funds have found their way to the authoritylbody in question. The link between the financing received by an entity and an appropriate Government must be cleorly established.
16.tn this case, there is no material to indicate that any of the funds received by the petitioner owed their source to either the Central Government or the State Government. The constituent shareholders of the petitioner are independent entities and whose source of funds are not limited to the Central Government/State Government. Although, substantial part of equity of nationalized banks is held by the Government, the sources of funds availoble to the bank are not limited to the Government alone.
27. lt is noted that the hotding of Govt. of lndia in the pubtic sector banks participating in the CDR arrangement varies from 55.02% to 82.23Yo. The remaining sharehotding is of financial institutions, mutua[ funds and others. Further, banks atso receive substantial deposits as Part of their business and There is nothing on record ,'r;-
I to estabtish that the Centrat Government has parted with some funds for financing the CDR and the said funds have found their way to the CDR. Since the funds received by the CDR from pubtic sector banks, by way of the initial contribution or contribution of Rs. 4 takhs per case, cannot be traced to any government, the conclusion that the CDR has been indirectty provided substantial finance from the government is not sustainabte.
28. ln view of the foregoing, we hotd that the Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) is not a pubtic authority under the RTI Act.
Zg. White arriving at the above conctusion, we woutd tike to deal with the tegitimate concern expressed by the Appettant and one of the Comptainants that since the CDR restructures debts, running into thousands of crores of rupees, especiatty debts given by pubtic sector banks, absence of a mechanism to receive information concerning the CDR woutd negate the principtes of transparency and accountabitity in the functioning of the Government. ln the above context, we note that even though CDR is not a pubtic authority, it does not impty that a citizen has no possibitity of getting information regarding it, especiatty the debt restructuring decided by it. lt is seen that the CDR ptaces on its website the information concerning the total number of references received by the CDR Cett, number of cases rejected before admission or approval, number of cases under consideration of CDR e.g., tota[ number of cases approved, the number of cases withdrawn on account of package faiture, the number of cases exited successfutty, the number of live cases in CDR etc. The aggregate debt is also mentioned in each case, atong with the number of and assregate debt segregated industry'wise. More importantty, the CDR i#9l&a.SSses a
-
,,} decides restructuring in cases referred to it by the banks and, therefore, the information concerning such restructuring, the sacrifice made etc. is availabte with the banks concerned. Accordingty, in case the information pertains to loans given by pubtic sector banks, which are pubtic authorities under the RTI Act, a citizen can seek it from the banks concerned subject, of course, to the provisions of the RTI Act.
30. With the above observations, one appea[ and two comptaints are disposed of.
31. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
SN..l--
q.l-
(Manjula Prasher) (Sharat Sabharwal)
I nformation Commissioner I nformation Com missioner
Copy to:-1. Shri Rajesh Kutkarni
Genera[ Manager (Legat),
lDBl Bank Ltd, lDBl Tower, Cuffe Parade,
WTC Complex, Mumbai - 400005
2. Shri Nethaji- Assistant General Manager
Department of Banking Regutation,
Reserve Bank of lndia, Central Office, Aul&"6-6/ 1,'',.s *D.
12th Floor, Centra[ Office Buitding,
Shaheed Bhagar Singh Road, JM ,L.1./ s
Mumbai - 400001 ( x-.<, rhAtue t
\ar,.-
4
20
l'