Harinder Dhingra vs Stresssed Assets Stabilization Fund ... on 4 December, 2020

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harinder Dhingra vs Stresssed Assets Stabilization Fund ... on 4 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 25.05.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.12.2017and first appeal dated 23.02.2018:-

(i) The total loan amount as outstanding against M/s Malvika Steels before the settlement of the Loan Account.

Page 1 of 7

(ii) Details of the amount which was settled by your committee for the above mentioned loan account.

(iii) The total loan amount as outstanding against M/s Usha Ispat before the settlement of the Loan Account.

(iv) Details of the amount which was settled by your committee for the abovementioned loan account.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.12.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund (SASF), WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 12.01.2018 replied to the appellant. Dissatisfied with this, the appellant filed first appeal dated 23.02.2018. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.03.2018 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 25.05.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 25.05.2018inter alia on the grounds that complete information was not provided by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.01.2018 denied the information under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. The FAA vide order dated 22.03.2018 furnished part of information to the appellant.

Hearing on 19.05.2020

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Ms.Meena Chandrasekhar Deputy General Manager and CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund(SASF), Bandra, attended the hearing through audio conference.

Interim order dated 30.06.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observation/directions on 30.06.2020:

"6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent is vague and incomplete. The respondent claimed that loan accounts of Page 2 of 7 M/s Malvika Steels and M/s Usha Ispat have not been settled yet. However, as per the report tabled in Lok Sabha in July 2017, the Committee had stated that the default of Rs. 594.5 crore of Malvika Steel and Rs. 321 crores of M/s Usha Ispat were settled for Rs. 41.7 crores and Rs. 48 crores respectively. Further, the respondent during the hearing failed to justify the exemption claimed by the then CPIO. In view of this the Commission feels that reply given by respondent was contradictory to the report submitted in Lok Sabha in July 2017. It is also noted that the information sought has not been provided by the respondent even after a lapse of around more than two and half years from the date of filing of the RTI application. Hence, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue Show-cause notice to Mr. Prashant Gore, the then CPIO and Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against each of them. The present CPIO,Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar is given a responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as the show-cause notice to the then CPIO,Mr. Prashant Gore and secure his written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the CPIOs) should reach to the Commission within three weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide a revised point-wise reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order."

Hearing on 27.10.2020

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, CPIO and Shri Prashant Gore, the then CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. Shri Prashant Gore, the then CPIO inter alia submitted that the appellant had sought information regarding the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank including details of amounts on which such borrower's accounts were settled which was in the nature of commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a IDBI Bank/ third party. Apart from the above, the information relating to the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank was also held by CPIO in its fiduciary relationship and no larger public interest Page 3 of 7 was involved thereby warranting the disclosure of the said information under the RTI Act. In view of this, he had denied the information by claiming exemption from disclosure under Section 8(l)(e) of RTI Act. He further submitted that the FAA, vide order dated 22.03.2018, disposed of the first appeal stating that as per the report tabled in Lok Sabha in July 2017, the Committee has stated that the default of Rs.594.5 crore of Malvika Steel and Rs.321 crores of M/s Usha Ispat were settled for Rs.41.7 crores and Rs.48 crores respectively. However, while disposing off the appeal, the then FAA informed the appellant that, "In both the cases i.e. Malvika Steels Ltd.(MSL) and Usha Ispat Ltd.(UIL), no settlement has been arrived at with the borrowers by SASF. In the case of MSL, the mortgaged assets have been sold by IFCI, through DRT -- I (Delhi) in a transparent manner. The mortgaged assets in the case of UIL have also been sold by SASF under SARFAESI Act through public auction in a transparent manner. The indicated recovery of Rs:41.78 crores in respect of M L is not a settlement with the borrowers but only a part of pro-rata share of SASF in the sale proceeds of the secured assets of the company. SASF has subsequently, received a further amount of Rs.12.95crores from the sale proceeds from IFCI. Likewise, the amount of Rs.48.07crore is only partial recovery in the case of UIL made by sale of assets through SARFAESI and there is no settlement with the borrowers. An amount of Rs. 16. 14 crores has been recovered subsequently in case of Usha Ispat Ltd. as SASF's pro-rata share in the balance of sale proceeds." However, in compliance of the direction given by Hon'ble CIC, the present CPIO, SASF had furnished revised point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2020. He further submitted that he in the capacity of CPIO had acted honestly, diligently, reasonably and in good faith in discharging his duties and there was no mala fide involved whatsoever while responding to the RTI application. Accordingly, he prayed to drop the penalty proceeding issued against him.

5.2. Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO inter alia submitted that she was designated as CPIO of SASF w.e.f. 19.04.2018. By then the RTI application and first appeal had been disposed off by the previous CPIO and FAA respectively. Thereafter, the Page 4 of 7 appellant had not approached SASF for providing the said information. She further submitted that she had not received any notice regarding hearing on 19.05.2020. Therefore, she could not make any written submissions before the hearing of said appeal. However, immediately after the said hearing, she had given her written submissions vide letter dated 20.05.2020. She further submitted that the loan accounts of Malvika Steel Ltd. and Usha Ispat Ltd. Had not been settled yet, the appellant relied upon the report tabled in Parliament in July 2017. Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO also stated that the action taken report by the Government on the observations/recommendations of the Committee contained in their 78th Report, as available in the website of Lok Sabha, clearly mention that the amounts mentioned in the report were received through recovery action and the accounts had not been settled. The respondent informed that SASF was still pursuing recovery action against borrowers and guarantors through DRTs. However, in compliance of the inter order of the Commission, they had provided revised self-explanatory point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2020. She further stated that since revised reply was given as directed by the Commission and there was no mala fide on her part, she requested the Commission to drop the penalty proceeding issued against her.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant had requested for information relating to the borrower's accounts of IDBI Bank including details of amounts on which such borrower's accounts were settled etc. The respondent had simply denied the information without giving any justification. Moreover, copies of the CPIO's reply and the FAA's order were not on record, hence, show-cause notices were issued to them. It may not be out of place to mention that under the RTI Act, the CPIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i) of the RTI Act. Merely quoting the bare clause of the RTI Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. However, in compliance of the Commission's order dated 30.06.2020, the respondent had re-visited the RTI application and had duly replied with comprehensive reasons vide their letter dated 21.08.2020. Moreover, the appellant in his second appeal, Page 5 of 7 had failed to demonstrate the public interest warranting the disclosure of information. Perusal of the record reveals that the indicated recovery of Rs.41.78crores in respect of MSL is not a settlement with the borrowers but only a part of pro-rata share of SASF in the sale proceeds of the secured assets of the company. SASF has subsequently, received a further amount of Rs.12.95crores from the sale proceeds from IFCI. Likewise, the amount of Rs.48.07 crore is only partial recovery in the case of UIL made by sale of assets through SARFAESI and there is no settlement with the borrowers. Further, the explanation submitted by the respondent in response to the show-cause notice appears to be reasonable and it was established that there was no mala fide on part of the respondents while responding to the RTI application. In view of the absence of any mala fide on the part of the CPIOs, it would not be appropriate to take any action against them as per Section 20 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the show-cause notices against to Mr. Prashant Gore, the then CPIO and Ms. Meena Chandrasekhar, the present CPIO, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai, are hereby dropped. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 03.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. Ms. MEENA CHANDRASEKHAR (C.P.I.O) STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND, 3RD FLOOR, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400005 (for forwarding to the then C.P.I.O Sh. PRASHANT GORE)

2. Ms. MEENA CHANDRASEKHAR (C.P.I.O) STRESSED ASSETS STABILIZATION FUND, 3RD FLOOR, IDBI TOWER, WTC COMPLEX, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005 HARINDER DHINGRA Page 7 of 7

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission