Central Information Commission
Vinodkumar M. Patel (The Mehsana Urban ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 7 July, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2020/122654
MehsanaUrban Co-operative
operative Bank Ltd. ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
Through Authorized Signatory
gnatory
Mr. Vinod Kumar M Patel
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Enforcement, Central
Office Mezzanine Floor, Main Building
Fort, Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 12-02-2020 FA : 09-04-2020 SA : 11-08-2020
11
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : 07-05-2020 Hearing: 30-06-2022
30
ORDER
1. The original applicant icantfiled an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)Reserve Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.The original applicant seeking informationis as under:-
Page 1 of 72. No reply of CPIO is placed on record record.Being Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant bank has filed first appeal dated 09-04-2020and and requested that the information should not be disclosed to the original applicant.
applicant The FAA vide order dated 07-05-2020agreed agreed with the stand taken by the CPIO regarding reg disclosure of information and dismissed the appeal appeal.The The appellant bank has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought should not be provided to original applicant applicant.
Hearing:
3. Shri Vinod Kumar M. Patel (CEO of the appellant bank) attended the hearing through video-conferencing conferencing. The respondent, Ms. RajashreeRajpathak shreeRajpathak, CPIO/DGMattended attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The original applicant did not attend the hearing despite notice.
4. The written submissions of the parties are taken on record.
Page 2 of 75. The representative of the appellant bank has submitted that they opposed the decision of the CPIO saying the reasoning of the CPIO is flawed contending that RBI is under legal obligation to disclose information if the information demanded is of its own. He further submitted that the RBI has no obligation to disclose or part with the information held by it which belongs to a third party. He also submitted that the copy of the order dated 04.11.2019, even if held by RBI, already served to the bank and contained private information about the bank. He opposed parting of the order dated 04.11.2019 by CPIO as the order is purely confined to the Bank alone (a third party) and as such private and there is every likelihood that the contents of the said order, if parted with, are likely to be used to tarnish the image of the bank and to settle personal score with some of the functionaries of the bank. He submitted that there is no larger public interest served by parting the copy of the order to the applicant. On the other hand, the damage that it is likely to cause is much more that it not parting it. The disclosure of such information will prejudicially affect Bank's rights as a third party more specially appellant's right of confidentiality/ privacy bank submits that CPIO of RBI may disclose/ part with the order only when the public interest outweighs the possible harm or injury to third party's interest.
6. The representative of the Reserve Bank of India while presenting their case inter alia submitted that the applicant vide above RTI applicationinter alia, sought, copy of the speaking order dated 04.11.2019, whereby RBI had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. (the bank). They further submitted that the then CPIO issued the notice under Section 11(1) read with Section 11(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to the third party i.e. appellant bank informing that RBI was required to disclose the information sought by the above applicant, enabling appellant bank to make written submission as to whether the information sought by the applicantmight be disclosed or not along with reasons for the same. After considering the response from Appellant Bank, the CPIO decided to disclose the desired information to the applicant after severing the information exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the RTI Act in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of RTI Act. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry &Ors (2016) 3 SCC 525 observed that:-
"RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank. RBI ought to act with transparency and not hide information that might Page 3 of 7 embarrass individual banks. It is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and disclose the information sought by the applicant.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the original RTI applicant has sought information regarding copy of the speaking order dated 04.11.2019, whereby RBI had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. Further, he has asked a copy of report of Statutory Inspection of the Mehsana Urban Bank Co-op. Bank Ltd., conducted by RBI as on 31.03.2018 and other queries related thereto.The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India had issued notices under Section 11(1) and 11(3) to the appellant bank intending to disclose the information. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the appellant bank had filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority. The FAA had also dismissed the first appeal of the appellant bank summarily. The Commission observes that the RTI applicant had insisted for disclosure of information as per Jayantilal N. Mistry's case. The Appellant Bank contested that the information sought as a whole is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1) (d) and 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act and that the CPIO/FAA has not passed any reasoned order settling their objections nor gave any opportunity of hearing to them.
8. The Commission takes note of the submissions made by the Bank that the information, proposed to be disclosed is in the nature of credit information and the same was supplied to the Reserve Bank of India in fiduciary capacity as the Regulator. The large amount of data relating to its clients including their identity, personal details etc. is shared with the regulator, without any redaction or withholding the information, in good faith that these will be objectively analysed in discharge of their statutory obligations to make fair judgment on their functioning without affecting their competitive position.To this extent, there is an element of trust and confidence in sharing the data, both financial and operational, between the RBI and the bank. The information and data of the clients in the hands of Bank also has the element of trust and confidence that such data will not be disclosed or shared against their right to privacy/commercial interest.
9. There are apparently two set of such information which have been shared by the bank with the regulator under statutory obligation. First is the Page 4 of 7 information/data of clients relating to their business/commercial operations, financial transactions, business and commercial strategy which is shared by clients with financial institutions in full trust and confidence and is held by them in fiduciary capacity, protected from disclosure under the RTI Act in their hands. Second set is the information relating to business strategy, decisions, transactions, other operational data etc. of financial institution which may have bearing on their competitive position and also enjoys the exemption from disclosure in their hands, if it is a public authority or otherwise, under the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that the exemption of disclosure of certain information under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 in the hands of financial institutions does not evaporate once such data/information is shared, in good faith and trust, with the regulator under statutory obligations. This aspect is not the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal Mistry's judgment and decision of the regulator to consider redacting such data/information while disclosing the reports is to be aligned with this and other judicial pronouncements of Supreme Court and High Courts covering such aspects.
10. The Commission further observes that orders simpliciter irrespective of the different objections raised by the appellant bank apparently lacked application of mind or reasons on the part of the CPIO. Reasons for rejection or acceptance of the specific objections raised by them has not been spelt out in the order which has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to them.The Commission further observes that the CPIO is free to take decisions on disclosure of information as per provision of RTI Act, 2005 giving a reasoned orders on the objections filed. The CPIO while issuing notice under Section 11 of the RTI Act has given the opportunity to the Appellant Bank to file their objections, if any, against disclosure of information sought but has not found it necessary to give them an opportunity of hearing. While not doing so, the CPIO has not passed any reasoned order covering his deliberations on their objections, his understanding of law or jurisprudence in deciding specific objections, in favor of disclosure etc. Order passed by the CPIO is cryptic, without any reference to objections raised by the Appellant Bank. Similarly, the FAA instead of passing a speaking order have also given a cryptic order to the Appellant Bank. The CPIO and the FAA are expected to apply their mind and pass reasoned order elaborating reasons for accepting /not accepting their objections in his decision before issuing the intent of disclosing the information. Further, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant nor Page 5 of 7 speaking order have been passed by FAA for not giving such opportunity of hearing. The Commission is of the view that every objection should be dealt and rejected/accepted with a reason and reasons for not giving opportunity of personal hearing should be well reasoned too in view of wider implications.
11. The Commission observes that rightful claims of the RTI applicant has to be adjudicated in the light of specific objections filed by the Appellant Bank, various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts providing guidance on such matters. Opportunity of hearing should necessarily be provided and orders passed by the CPIO and the FAA otherwise should be reasoned, speaking and clear. In the present case, such order should enumerate the principles for disclosure or non-disclosure of the speaking order dated 04.11.2019, whereby RBI had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on The Mehsana Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.or various types of data, personal information, commercially sensitive information of clients, specifically excluded disclosures under various Acts, etc.
12. In light of the above observations and considering all the facts and circumstances of the above mentioned case, the Commission is of the view that the CPIO should spell out the principles based on which he would agree/ disagree to disclose such information and accordingly the personal, commercially sensitive information of clients may treated in view of the provisions of section 8 &10 of RTI Act. Hence, with these observations the order passed by the CPIO and FAA in this matter is set aside and the case is being remanded to the CPIO for adjudication with the direction to decide the objections of the appellant bank categorically to outline the principles to be followed for redacting and non-disclosure information. It give the parties a fair opportunity at the appellate stage so that the CPIO's order may be contested on the basis of principles laid down for which the information sought intended to be disclosed. The above said directions should be complied with within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. In case the appellant/applicant is aggrieved with the order of the CPIO, they are at the liberty to file first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and afterwards second appeal before the Commission.
13. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 6 of 714. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 05-07-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Department of Enforcement,
Central Office Mezzanine Floor,
Main Building, Fort, Mumbai-400005
2. Mr. Vinodkumar M Patel (Appellant)
3. Mr. KiritkumarBhudrbhai Patel (Original Appellant) Page 7 of 7