Central Information Commission
Mr. Sharavanan vs Repatriates Cooperative Finance And ... on 20 March, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/RCFDB/A/2022/153734
Shri Sharavanan ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Repatriates Cooperative Finance and ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Development Bank Limited
Date of Hearing : 18.03.2024
Date of Decision : 18.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.08.2022
PIO replied on : 17.09.2022
First Appeal filed on : 25.09.2022
First Appellate Order on : 27.10.2022
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.11.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:-
1. "Please provide me with the information, regarding the Locus-
Standi/Authority of the Repco Bank Limited to FIX and PAY a Consolidated FEE to Mr. S. SETHURAMAN [Arbitrator), for Conducting Arbitration Proceedings including My issue in ARC No.39/2022, in Clear violation to the FOURTH SCHEDULE of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and as well as to the Dictum Laid down in the Case of National Highway Authority Of ... vs Gayatri Jhansi Roadways Limited on 10 July, 2019?
[Since there is no Arbitration Agreement entered by and between Me and Repco Bank Limited, Nor there is any specific clause/condition mentioned in the Loan Sanction Order, or in the Loan Agreement, or in the Articles of Agreement, which determines the Fees of the Arbitrator/s].
2. Please provide me with the information, regarding the Maintainability and Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal, and Arbitrator [Mr. S. Sethuraman] in My issue in ARC No.39/2022, Since the institution of Arbitration Tribunal and its Proceedings Prima-Facie shows and proves to be in sheer violation to the FOURTH & FIFTH SCHEDULE, and also in violation to Section 12 r/w SIXTH and SEVENTH SCHEDULES of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and (Amendment) Act 2015, and in violation to the well settled Law Declared by the Page 1 of 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Cases of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs HSCC (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019 and Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020?
3. Please provide me with information, regarding Repco Bank Limited, deliberately not Complying with the FOURTH & FIFTH SCHEDULE, and Section 12 r/w SIXTH and SEVENTH SCHEDULES of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and (Amendment) Act 2015, and committing Blatant & Deliberate Violations/wilful Disobedience/Acts of Contempt to the well settled Law Declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Cases of Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs HSCC (India) Limited on 26 November, 2019, and Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020, and Conducting Arbitration in my issue in ARC No.39/2022 through Mr.S.SETHURAMAN, who was appointed by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies as per the request/recommendation of the Repco Bank Limited?
Please provide me with the above sought information in a paragraph wise manner, and in a Transparent and Correct manner without any Omission, since the above sought information is General in Nature, and some information is directly related to my Loan issue pending with the Repco Bank Limited in ARC No.39/2022."
The PIO/Joint General Manager, REPCO Bank, Chennai vide letter dated 17.09.2022 replied as under:-
"You have sought various clarifications, in the name of information, with regards to compliance to various provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 like, payment of fee to arbitrator, maintainability and jurisdiction of the Arbitration tribunal, etc...
The definition of information as per Sec 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005 is read as follows:
"Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
Further, in the matter of Rajeev Agarwal vs DRT, Ahmedabad-I on 30 March, 2017, the Central Information Commission has observed that when the applicant is trying to seek clarifications in the garb of information, the CPIO/public authority is not mandated to give views/clarifications/ interpretation/opinion under the RTI Act, 2005 but provide information available with it or under its control while keeping the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in view.
In view of the fact that you have sought only clarifications/ justifications/opinions which does not fall within the purview of 'information' as defined under Sec 2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005, this office is not obligated under the RTI Act to provide interpretation and clarifications sought by you."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.09.2022. The FAA vide order dated 27.10.2022 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Page 2 of 3Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri A Sudhakar - PIO/Addl. General Manager was present during hearing through video conference.
The Respondent reiterated their contentions from the aforementioned documents, viz. PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that response in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act had been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case the Commission notes that appropriate response had been sent by the Respondent, which is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The Appellant has chosen not to buttress the case. In the given circumstances, no further intervention is deemed necessary in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya(हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3