Central Information Commission
Sandeep Singh Jadoun vs Directorate General Of Employment on 21 August, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567
Sandeep Singh Jadoun v. PIO, DGEAT
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 19.02.2018, CPIO replied on 27.02.2018, FAO on 15.03.2018, Second
appeal filed on 15.03.2018, Hearing on 25.06.2018;
Proceedings on 25.06.2018: Appellant present from NIC Jaipur, Public Authority represented by
CPIO. Mr Ompal Singh
Date of Decision-20.08.2018: Directions issued - SHOW CAUSE - 20-09-2018 AT 12.00 NOON
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information about number willful defaulters (those who are unwilling to pay despite having the capacity to do so) of Rs 50 crore and above loans advanced by banks and other financial institutions, whether with or without guarantees, the names of guarantors, details of loans such as dates of sanction and default and details of NPA accounts etc.
2. Appellant wanted also to know the cost and investment of the projects for employment generating schemes initiated by the Central Government between 2005 and 2018 along with the list of failed projects and projects which only existed on paper and were never introduced on the floor, with which the Ministry of Labour and Employment MoLE is concerned.
3. The CPIOreplied on 27.02.2018 on email to theappellant that information is not maintained (the reply of the CPIO is notmade available). For information on points 9 and 10 he filed first appeal, wherein CPIOs reply was upheld necessitating second appeal.
CONTENTIONS:
4. Mr. Ompal Singh, officer representing the Ministry of Labour and Employment, stated that point no. 10 was related to his public authority-
MoLE, which already responded and the remaining points were related to other ministries such as the Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 1 Rural Development and Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
5. The officer submitted that the Government of India had introduced a digital portal, which provides assistance regarding employment schemes launched by the Government such as Pradhan MantriRojgarProtsahanYojana (PMRPY) at website, www.ncs.gov.in and a toll free number 1800-4251514, both functional from Tuesdays to Sundays.
6. The appellant stated that he required the details of costs and investments involved in the employment-generating projects and schemes launched since 2005 and the officer responded that such information is available with the Regional Offices under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Rural Development and Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
7. Records show that the CPIO has not transferred the RTI application to the other public authorities, who held information sought and had responsibility to maintain the cost and investment details of the employment related schemes and projects started by the Government. When CPIO does not transfer RTI request to appropriate authority, it becomes their duty to collect the same and furnish to appellant.
8. The CPIO dismissed the request saying"information was not maintained in the form sought", which is neithera defense nor an exception. This is not recognized as an excuse to deny under any of the provisions of RTI. Section 7(9) of RTI Act says: An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. The CPIO has totally ignored this mandate and did not try to show how it disproportionately diverts the resources.
9. This sentence of the CPIO "information was not maintained in the form sought", shows that he has the information sought in some form CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 2 but he did not give. This forms part of 17 categories of information that has to be given voluntarily under Section 4(1)(b),(c) and (d) of RTI Act. The department is expected to have a record of cost and investment of the projects, and employment generated by them. By asking under RTI Act, the appellant gave an opportunity to Ministry to showcase their achievements if any. As a concerned regulatory wing of the Government, they should also have the list of failed projects or projects which only existed on paper and were never introduced on the floor (as asked). If there are no failures, should have been proud of it. It is their duty to explain reasons for the failures, if any. The CPIO appears to have totally ignored Section 4 and the responsibilities of public authority under RTI Act. Not giving such information even when the appellant formally requested under RTI Act might lead to penalty.
10. It is not known whether other ministries gave information to applicant about number willful defaulters of Rs 50 crore and above loans advanced by banks and other financial institutions, whether with or without guarantee, the names of guarantors, details of loans such as dates of sanction and default and details of NPA accounts etc. These questions are significant for the nation and undoubtedly every taxpaying citizen has a right to know about evasion of their money by some big business persons. Another question is why not Government publishes the names and photographs ofwillful defaulters of Rs 50 crore or above.
11. It is reported that between 1998 and 2018, around 300,000 farmers committed suicide in our country, often by drinking pesticides themselves.(Sainath, P. "India's agrarian crisis has gone beyond the agrarian". The Wire. https://thewire.in/agriculture/a-long-march-of-the-dispossessed-to-delhi.)They felt ashamed to live in the midst of their friends and relatives for their failure to pay back. They lived by and died in the agricultural fields believing in mother earth, but did not leave mother land like 7000 rich, educated corporate industrialists who cheated the nation by evading thousands of crores. Farmers proved that they arereal patriots as they valued the duty to pay back nation's money as higher than their living. In every election the political parties woo the voters with promises of farm loan waiver,some of them rode to power and few fulfilled promise.Surprisingly CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 3 the defaulters of small amounts like farmers are defamed in public, while the defaulters above Rs 50 crore were given long rope, high concessions in the name of one time settlements, interest waivers, several other privileges and their names are hidden from exposure to secure their reputation!.
12. A media report said that Reutersnews agency has collected RBI data through RTI and concluded that country's bad loans have hit a record high of Rs. 9.5 lakh crore at the end of June 2017.
(https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/banking-finance/indias-bad-loans-here-is-the- list-of-12-companies-constituting-25-of-total-npa/903396/lite/)
13. Another media report says: As on September 30, 2017, more than Rs 1.1 lakh crore was owed to banks by "willful defaulters". More than 9,000 such accounts for which banks have filed lawsuits for recovery and found that the top 11 debtor groups, each with dues of over Rs 1,000 crore, together had over Rs 26,000 crore outstanding to the banks. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/indias-wilful-defaulters-owe- more-than-rs-1-lakh-crore-to-banks/articleshow/63035851.cms)
14. After several Bank officials are arrested in Rs 11300 crore scam, involving Punjab National Bank, the All India Officers Confederation AIBOC, (with membership of 3 lakh officers) has posed a challenge to Central Government publication of names of the willful defaulters of all Banks. AIBOC also demanded that the banks be given liberty to write to the home ministry to take over the passports of directors of defaulting companies for emigration clearance to prevent their escape. AIBOC askedwhy Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was hesitating to publish the list of defaulters like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi and MehulChoksi and why they were allowed to leave the country. AIBOC questioned banks, the way they are writing off loans of thousands of crores every year in favour of these corporate, whichitself was major scam.AIBOC has alleged that the RBI and government did not correct the system despite it being well known that SWIFT system has been used for frauds in the nineties.(https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bank-officers-union-challenges-govt-to- publish-names-of-defaulters-1175659-2018-02-23) CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 4
15. The apprehensions of AIBOC were proved by media's analytical reports.
One report last year says about 7,000 millionairesshifted their residence outside India, or changed their citizenship, leaving the banks, economy of the nation, public exchequer and public sector banks bleeding.
16. An internet news portal gave,on 19th February 2018, the list of defaulters who escaped from our country changing citizenship.
(https://thewire.in/business/nirav-modi-look-back-high-profile-indian-businessmen-
skipped-town)In March 2018, Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar stated in Parliament that 31 business people facing CBI investigation have flown out of country. After the Nirav Modi case, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) set up a five-member working group to examine the exodus and their taxation aspects. (http://www.newindianexpress.com/business/ 2018/may/08/new-tax-laws-for-defaulters-who-flee-abroad-like-vijay-mallya-nirav-modi-
1811596.html) The Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance in April, 2018 was passed. A committee headed by financial services secretary Rajiv Kumar, with representatives from the RBI, the ministries of home and external affairs, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has recommended stopping willful defaulters with loans exceeding Rs 50 crore from travelling overseas without prior approval.In March, banks had been directed to seek the passport details of borrowers taking loans of Rs 50 crore and more. The website reported that for quarter ended June 30, 2018, 3,385 suits were filed against defaulting companies that had wilfully defaulted on loans of Rs 25 lakh and above - amounting to a whopping Rs 57,523.90 crore.The finance ministry had also directed PSBs to examine all NPA accounts of over Rs 50 crore for possible fraud and accordingly report the cases to concerned investigating agencies, including CBI, ED and DRI, if any wrongdoing was detected.(https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/wilful-defaulters-with- loans-over-rs-50-crore-from-foreign-travel/story/281122.html)
17. The RBI has issued a Master Circular regarding willful defaulters, on June 30, 2015.It says thatPursuant to the instructions of the Central Vigilance Commission for collection of information on willful defaults of Rs.25 lakhs and above by RBI and dissemination to the reporting banks and FIs, a scheme was framed by RBI with effect from 1st April 1999 under which the banks and notified All India Financial Institutions were required to CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 5 submit to RBI the details of the willful defaulters. This recommended criminal action by banks under Sections 403 to 415 of Indian Penal Code, which deal with cheating.
18. Ministry of Corporate Affairs had introduced the concept of a Director Identification Number (DIN) with the insertion of Sections 266A to 266G in the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2006. In order to ensure that directors are correctly identified and in no case, persons whose names appear to be similar to the names of directors appearing in the list of willful defaulters, are wrongfully denied credit facilities on such grounds, banks / FIs have been advised to include the Director Identification Number (DIN) as one of the fields in the data submitted by them to Credit Information Companies.
19. The RTI Act Section 4(1) (c) says: publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; (d) says provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. What is the policy of Finance Ministry, Ministry for Statistics and Program Implementation and RBI in dealing with the willful defaulters of Rs 50 crore and above, how do they want to deal with them and save the public money and economy of our nation? They have duty to inform the people from time to time with all updated information, and to remove the apprehensions expressed by AIBOC, and the Media in above referred paragraphs. This RTI applicant's request reflects the apprehensions of the people in general also.
20. In RBI v Jayantilal N Mistry, the Supreme Court division Bench on 16th December 2015 gave a landmark order on the need for RBI adhering to provisions of RTI Act. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86904342/). In separate applicationsdifferent citizens asked details of inspection reports and various other documents, details of penalty imposed on banks, advisory notes about banks. Matters reached CIC which directed disclosure. The RBI challenged the CIC orders and all writ petitions were transferred to Supreme Court. Leading advocate Mr T R Andhyarujina represented Reserve Bank of India, who assailed orders of disclosure by CIC. The specific stand of petitioner Reserve Bank of India is that the CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 6 information sought for is exempted under Section 8(1)(a), (d) and (e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As the regulator and supervisor of the banking system, the RBI has discretion in the disclosure of such information in public interest. Supreme Court rejected all the contentions of the RBI and directed them to honour all the CIC orders of disclosure without interfering with those orders and dismissing the appeal of the RBI. In the wake of this order of SC, the RBI has no other alternative to disclosure of the information sought.
21. The question is when the RBI authorized Banks to prepare the list of willful defaulters of Rs 25 lakh, and after ensuring no genuine loan-taker's name is published in the list of willful defaulters, why not ensure publication of the details of willful defaulters of Rs 50 crore and above as sought by this appellant, to the nation to fulfill the right to information of the citizens.
22. Why the Government of India, Finance Ministry, Ministry for Statistics and Program Implementation and RBI should not explain the action taken or contemplated to recover the loans from willful defaulters beyond Rs 50 Crore, reasons for the failure, criminal actions initiated, or reasons for not initiating criminal actions, etc to the people?
DIRECTIONS:
23. Hence, the Commission directs Mr. Ompal Singh, CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not providing information to the appellant, before September 12, 2018 and the case is posted on September 20, 2018, at 12.00 noon.
24. The Commission also directs CPIOs, Mr. Ompal Singh, DGEAT, Ministry of Labour & Employment, the Ministry of Rural Development, and Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship to coordinate with each other and provide a comprehensive information report to the appellant, explaining point-wisealong with details of failures if any, and the reasons thereof before September 12, 2018, and send a report of compliance to this Commission.
CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 7
25. The Commission directs the notice to CPIOs of Finance Ministry, Ministry for Statistics and Program Implementation and RBI to provide the information as mentioned in paragraph 22, with compliance report to this Commission and if they cannot submit any part of that information, they may chose to explain why should they not be directed to publish the details of the information sought including the names of willful defaulters, before 20th September 2018, the case is posted for compliance on 20th September 2018 at 12 noon.
Sd/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/DGEAT/A/2018/117567 Page 8