Central Information Commission
Shashank Raj (Icici Bank Limited) vs Reserve Bank Of India on 16 March, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/152460
ICICI Bank Limited ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Through its authorized signatory:
Mr. Shashank Raj
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Reserve Bank of India
Dept. of Supervision, Centre-1
World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade
Colaba, Mumbai-400005
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 01-05-2021 FA : 20-08-2021 SA : 06-12-2021
CPIO : 01-07-2021 FAO : 30-08-2021 Hearing : 11-03-2022
ORDER
1. Mr. Girish Mittal i.e. the RTI applicant filed an application dated 01.05.2021 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before CPIO, Reserve Bank of India seeking, Inspection Reports / Risk Assessment Reports made by Reserve Bank post completing the inspection, inter alia, pertaining to ICICI Bank Limited i.e. appellant herein and 13 other banks/Financial Institutions for the last 3 years. In the very RTI Application, the RTI applicant has also sought information pertaining to other 13 banks.
2. The respondent CPIO, Reserve Bank of India issued a Notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 expressing the intention to disclose the said Inspection Reports and Risk Assessment Reports. The appellant submitted its response to the Notice under Section 11(1) dated 31.05.2021 wherein the appellant objected to disclose the said information to the RTI applicant i.e. Shri Girish Mittal. The respondent CPIO, Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated 01.07.2021 has informed the ICICI Bank that "After considering your response dated 08.06.2021 to the above notice, we intend to disclose the Risk Assessment Page 1 of 7 Reports for the years 2017-18 & 2018-19 and lnspection Report for the year 2018-19 of your bank to the applicant.(Copy of the Annex to lR-2019 of your bank is attached after redacting the information exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005 read with para 77 of SC judgement dated 16.12.2015.)".
3. The appellant i.e. ICICI bank Appellant filed a first appeal dated 20.08.2021 before the First Appellate Authority, Reserve Bank of India, against the Order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the CPIO, Reserve Bank of India. The FAA vide its order dated 30.08.2021 had dismissed the first appeal of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the appellant ICICI Bank had filed second appeal dated 06.12.2021 before the Commission for stay of FAA order along with application for stay and application for urgent hearing.
4. Thereafter, the appellant i.e. ICICI Bank had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the respondent to not to disclose Risk Assessment Reports of the appellant for the period 2017-18 and 2018-19 and also the Inspection Report for the period of 2018-19 during the pendency of second appeal before the Commission. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.02.2022 had directed "Noting the said submissions, the CIC shall hear the parties and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within three weeks as an outer limit. Till such time the CIC hear and decides the appeal within three weeks, the interim order dated December 04, 2021 shall continue".
5. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the present second appeal is listed today for hearing.
Hearing:
6. The appellant was represented through their counsel Shri Anand Shankar Jha, Shri Arpit Gupta, Shri Shubham Tripathi and Shri Rahul Singh who were personally present in the hearing. The respondent, Reserve Bank of India, Shri Abhay Kumar, CPIO attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal attended the hearing through video-conferencing and his counsel Shri Jatin Bhardwaj was personally present in the hearing.
7. The written submissions of all the parties are taken on record.
8. The counsel for the appellant in his written submissions submitted that "The present RTI Applicant has filed application (dated 01.05.2021) seeking information, even in respect several banks including the Appellant Bank. Since the Information sought is commercially sensitive and statutorily protected third party information, a notice under Section 11(1) dated 31.05.2021 was issued by CPIO, RBI inviting objections from Appellant Bank. On 08.06.2021, Appellant Bank submitted its objections /inter alia that the information sought is exempted Page 2 of 7 under Section S(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It was also submitted that disclosure of Inspection Report would lead to divulgence of price sensitive information, market strategy and customers private data which is per se exempted under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. It was also submitted that RTI Applicant has failed to disclose public interest warranting disclosure of confidential information". The counsel for the appellant submitted that Mr. Girish Mittal, RTI Applicant, is a serial applicant who indiscriminately files applications, misusing the process of law. The present RTI application dated 01.05.2021, is one amongst hundreds of such applications filed in a routine manner seeking identical information in a repetitive manner, by the applicant. The counsel for the appellant further argued that the CPIO, RBI and Ld. FAA have abdicated their duties based on erroneous interpretation of SC judgment to mechanically disclose Inspection Reports and Risk Assessment Reports, without even ascertaining motive, intention or public interest involved in application seeking disclosure. The counsel for the appellant has also given his no objection if all the other banks (as mentioned in the RTI application) will be heard together. He further submitted that all the major banks of the country were represented and were heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the tagged transferred cases [T.C.(C) No. 91 - 101 / 2015] in which Jayantilal N. Mistry was passed. Significantly, ICICI Bank Ltd (Appellant herein) was the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.C.(C) No. 92 / 2015. Further, the main Writ Petition is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein all the other banks has raised this similar issue and if the directions are passed in this present second appeal then the Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court becomes infructuous.
9. The respondent Reserve Bank of India reiterated the reply given by the CPIO and FAA. The respondent in its written submissions further submitted that in order to withhold any information sought by the applicants under the RTI Act, such information should fall within any of the exempted items under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. If any part of the requested information qualifies for exemption, CPIO would be free to severe/blackout such part and provide the information. It would not be possible to claim exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) and (e) in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Ors. On query from the Commission that whether the public authority has any objection if all the other banks as mentioned in the RTI application will be heard along with this present second appeal. The respondent stated that he has no objection if all the other banks will be heard together.
Page 3 of 710. The counsel for the RTI applicant Shri Girish Mittal submitted that the RTI applicant herein (Girish Mittal) who had sought information from respondent (CPIO, RBI) by filing the RTI Application. With regard to the said RTI application, the respondent vide notice dated 01.07.2021, had apprised the appellant herein of his decision to disclose the required information under Section 11(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Vide a detailed order, dated 30.08.2021, the Appellate Authority of the RBI dismissed the Appellant's appeal against the notice, dated 01.07.2021. Thereafter, the appellant herein had challenged the order, dated 30.08.2021, before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide W.P.(C) No. 35 / 2022 without making the RTI Applicant Girish Mittal party. Vide order, dated 04.01.2022, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court granted interim relief to the appellant herein directing the respondent from disclosing the information to the RTI Applicant Mr. Girish Mittal and was also pleased to make the RTI applicant as a party respondent.
11. The counsel for the RTI applicant further submitted that the RTI applicant Mr. Girish Mittal, is the son of the sole contesting Respondent in T.C. (C) No. 93/2015, Late Mr. Kishan Lal Mittal. T.C. (C) No. 93/2015 had been tagged with T.C. (C) No. 91/2015 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment/order dated 16.12.2015, reported at Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayanitlal N. Mistry [(2016) 3 SCC 525] was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connected matters T.C. (C) No. 91-101/2015, with T.C. (C) No. 91/2015 as the lead matter. Vide the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had rejected all the arguments advanced by the RBI seeking non-disclosure of information and had upheld the various disclosure orders passed by the CIC. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the said transferred cases [T.C. (C) No. 91- 101/2015], the RTI applicants had sought certain information by applying under the RTI Act, however, disclosure of some of the information was denied by the RBI and other banks on the ground of economic interest, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationship and public interest. The said judgment, dated 16.12.2015, made it clear that RBI cannot deny disclosure of inspection reports etc. under the RTI Act. Thus, the issue regarding disclosure of Inspection Reports etc. under RTI Act has already been directly and substantially decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 2015. Therefore, the instant second appeal of the Appellant herein is hit by the principle of res judicata as the Appellant herein is attempting to reagitate and relitigate the same cause that has already achieved finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. He further submitted that all the major banks of the country were represented and were heard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the tagged transferred cases [T.C.(C) No. 91 - 101 / 2015] in which Jayantilal N. Mistry Page 4 of 7 was passed. Significantly, ICICI Bank Ltd (Appellant herein) was the Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.C.(C) No. 92 / 2015. Also, National Bank for Agriculture was the Petitioner in T.C.(C) No. 93 / 2015 and T.C.(C) No. 97 / 2015 and Deendayal Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd was Respondent No.2 in T.C.(C) No. 101 / 2015. Further, as per the Office Report dated 28.11.2015 in T.C.(C) No. 91 / 2015, one Mr. Mudit Sharma, Advocate had on 06.11.2015 filed Vakalatnama and Memo of appearance on behalf of intervenor respondent (Indian Banks' Association). The case status of T.C.(C) No. 91 /2015 also shows Indian Banks' Association as Respondent No.2 as well as the name of Mr. Mudit Sharma. The appearance of Mr. Mudit Sharma is also shown in orders, dated 01.12.2015 and 02.12.2015, when the arguments took place and judgment was finally reserved in the transferred cases. Therefore, the interests of all the banks were duly represented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by intervenor - Indian Banks' Association during the hearings of transferred cases (in which Jayantilal N. Mistry judgment was pronounced). Thereafter, the RTI applicant had also filed contempt petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while disposing of the aforesaid contempt petitions filed, vide judgment dated 26.04.2019, reported in Girish Mittal v. Parvati V. Sundaram, (2019) 20 SCC 747, held that RBI has committed contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by exempting disclosure of material, which included the inspection reports of banks, that was directed to be given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, passed strictures against the Reserve Bank of India in view of the said contempt. That thereafter, HDFC Bank and some other applicants had filed Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 2342 of 2019) in T.C. (C) No. 91/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.09.2019. On 02.09.2019 HDFC and some other applicants (Axis Bank, ICICI [the Appellant herein], Yes Bank, Augustine Quadros) had also filed W.P. (C) No. 1159/2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On 09.12.2019, State Bank of India filed W.P.(C) No. 1469/2019 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Later on, many other banks also filed Miscellaneous Applications. All these Miscellaneous Applications were seeking recall of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's main judgment, dated 16.12.2015, passed in Jayanitlal N. Mistry. That vide a detailed order, dated 28.04.2021, passed in Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Anr. He further submitted that the W.P. (C) No. 1159/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 1469/2019 filed by the banks had been de-tagged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order, dated 09.04.2021. The said writ petitions are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were last listed on 17.08.2021.
Page 5 of 713. During the hearing, the Commission inquired from the counsel of the RTI applicant that the RTI applicant had sought information in his original RTI application from 14 banks, therefore, other banks should also get opportunity to file their objections in this regard. On this, the counsel for the RTI applicant stated that other banks may not be heard as the judgment passed in the present case will automatically have binding on them. The counsel for the RTI applicant stated that the appellant has not shared their written submissions before the date of hearing.
Interim Decision:
14. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of all the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has approached this Commission with a prayer for early hearing of this present second appeal and to set aside the FAA order dated 30.08.2021. The Commission further observed that the original RTI applicant had filed RTI application before the CPIO, Reserve Bank of India and had sought Inspection Report/Risk Assessment Report made by RBI post completing the inspection of commercial banks and NBFCs for last 3 years with respect to 14 banks/institutions inspected by RBI. However, only one bank i.e. ICICI Bank has come for today's hearing, as the appellant ICICI Bank has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for early hearing of this matter.
15. It has further came into the notice of this Commission that most of the banks (as mentioned in the RTI application dated 01.05.2021) have also approached this Commission by way of filing their second appeals (arising out of same RTI application) and those second appeals are pending for hearing before this Commission bearing numbers CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147383; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145617; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/660016;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147221; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/147222;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/652193; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/639603;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/654598; CIC/RBIND/A/2021/146942;
CIC/RBIND/A/2021/145618. Out of the above mentioned cases, stay has been granted in file no. CIC/RBIND/A/2021/639603 and some cases were listed before the Commission but adjourned for next date of hearing. The parties have no objection if the abovementioned cases are clubbed together. Since, the cause of action has arisen from the same RTI application and orders of CPIO and FAA and in the interest of justice, other banks should also be heard in this matter before passing any order in this second appeal.
16. In view of this, the matter is adjourned.
Page 6 of 717. The Registry of this Commission to re-list this matter after two weeks preferably on Wednesday wherein notice of hearing should be sent to all 14 banks/institutions as mentioned in the RTI application. The Banks/Institutions should file their objections/written submissions in the matter within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. All the parties are directed to exchange copies of their written submissions with each well before the date of hearing. Notice should be send to all the parties along with a copy of this order.
18. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 11-03-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
Reserve Bank of India
Dept. of Supervision, Centre-1
World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade
Colaba, Mumbai-400005
2. Mr. Shashank Raj
3. Shri Girish Mittal,
Page 7 of 7