Central Information Commission
Mrb S Arora vs Andhra Bank on 22 June, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/001704
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of first hearing : 9th September 2015
Date of first order : 9th September 2015
Date of second hearing : 5th November 2015
Date of second order : 5th November 2015
Date of third hearing : 11th January 2016
Date of third order : 11th January 2016
Date of fourth hearing : 17th March 2016
Date of fourth order : 17th March 2016
Date of fifth hearing : 27th May 2016
Date of final order : 22nd June 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri B. S. Arora, Advocate,
Chamber No. 72, Patiala House Court,
India Gate, New Delhi 110001
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Andhra Bank, Legal Department, Head
Office, Dr. Pattabhi Bhawan, 5911,
Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004
Attendance during the hearing on 9.9.2015
The Appellant was present in person.
CIC/SH/A/2014/001704
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Manager (Law) was
present at the NIC Studio, Rangareddy.
Attendance during the hearing on 5.11.2015 and 11.1.2016. The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Senior Manager (Law) was present in person.
Advocate Ajit Warrier was present in person on behalf of the third party, IFLIC. Attendance during the hearing on 17.3.2016.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Senior Manager (Law) was present in person.
On behalf of the third party, IFLIC, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Sandeep Grover.
2. Ms. Tarunima Vijra.
Attendance during the hearing on 27.5.2016.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondents, Shri U. V. V. L. Prasad, CPIO was present in person.
CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 The following were present in person on behalf of the third party, IFLIC:
1. Advocate Sandeep Grover.
2. Shri K. R. Vishwanarayanan, Company Secretary.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Hearing on 9.9.2015
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application dated 7.2.2014 filed by the Appellant, seeking information on five points regarding cobranded cards, known as 'India First Health Card', came up today. The Appellant submitted that the information sought by him has not been provided. In response to our query, he stated that he would be satisfied if he is provided information in response to points No. 1, 2 and 5 of his RTI application. The Respondents stated that the information sought by the Appellant pertains to the health product of IFLIC and is available with them. They further submitted that they act only as corporate agent for IFLIC. They also stated that they had requested IFLIC to provide the information, but were informed by them that they are not a public authority under the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that the card is being issued by Andhra Bank on the basis of approval of RBI. Andhra Bank formed IFLIC and 74% of its equity is held by Andhra Bank and Bank of Baroda. Therefore, IFLIC cannot claim that they are not a public authority.
2. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties.
November 2015 at 2.00 p.m.
th
The matter is adjourned to be heard again on 5 in Room
No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this order by registered post, CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 immediately on its receipt, to the officer concerned of the IFLIC, informing them to be present at the next hearing, in case they wish to make any submissions.
3. We also draw the attention of the Appellant to the following observation made by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 7.10.2013 in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24290 of 2012]: "The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a nongovernment organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration."
The Appellant may send his written submissions, if any, in the light of the above, so as to reach the Commission latest by 29.10.2015.
Hearing on 5.11.2015
4. This matter came up again today. Advocate Ajit Warrier filed written submissions dated 2.11.2015 on behalf of the India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. (IFLIC). He handed over copies of the submissions to the Appellant and the representative of the Respondents during the proceedings. Advocate Warrier stated that IFLIC have received only the copy of the Commission's interim order dated 9.9.2015, but do not have a copy of the second appeal filed by the Appellant to the Commission, which is required by them to present their case. The Appellant agreed to send a copy of his second appeal, together with the relevant enclosures, to the third party (IFLIC), within ten days. He further submitted that he would file his reply to the written submissions dated 2.11.2015 of IFLIC to the Commission within a period of four weeks. He is directed to forward copies of his reply to IFLIC and the Respondents also.
CIC/SH/A/2014/001704
5. The matter is adjourned to be heard again on 11th January, 2016 at 2.30 p.m. In case any further written submissions are filed to the Commission by any of the parties, they should ensure that copies of the same are made available to the remaining parties before the next hearing on 11.1.2016.
Hearing on 11.1.2016
6. The matter came up again today. Advocate Ajit Warrier had filed written submissions dated 2.11.2015 on behalf of the third party, IFLIC. The Appellant and the Respondents acknowledged having received a copy of the same. The Appellant also filed his written submissions dated 5.1.2016. Advocate Warrier acknowledged having received a copy of the same. However, the Respondents stated that a copy of these submissions has not been provided to them. Accordingly, the Appellant is directed to forward a copy of his written submissions dated 5.1.2016 to the Respondents, so as to reach them before the date of the next hearing on 29.2.2016.
7. Before going into the issue of whether IFLIC is a public authority under the RTI Act, we asked the Respondents to indicate the procedure for issuance of the IFLIC cards. They stated that they are the corporate agent of IFLIC and in this capacity, receive applications from public for issuance of IFLIC cards. These applications are forwarded to IFLIC for their consideration and the cards issued by them are provided to those applicants, who applied through Andhra Bank, through the Respondent Bank. In the light of the foregoing, we are of the view that the information sought by the Appellant at points No. 1, 2 and 5 of his RTI application, in so far as the cards issued through the Respondent Bank are concerned, should be available with the Respondents. They were asked as to why they were not willing to provide this information. At this stage, both the representative CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 of the Respondents and Advocate Ajit Warrier stated that they would have to examine this matter further before making their submissions.
th
8. In view of the foregoing, the matter is adjourned to be heard again on 29 February, 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066.
Hearing on 17.3.2016
9. The matter came up again today. The Respondents confirmed that they have received a copy of the written submissions dated 5.1.2016 of the Appellant. Speaking on behalf of the Respondents, Shri Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Senior Manager (Law) stated that he wanted to modify the statement made by him during the hearing on 11.1.2016 and mentioned in paragraph 7 above. He further submitted that the cards in response to the applications made through the Respondent Bank are not provided to the applicants through the Respondent Bank, but directly by IFLIC. He stated that he made an erroneous submission last time because the exact procedure for issuance of the cards in question is known to the officials in the department that deals with the matter. At this point, speaking on behalf of the third party, IFLIC, Advocate Sandeep Grover stated that the cards are issued by IFLIC and in the agreement between the Respondent Bank and IFLIC, there are some confidentiality clauses.
10. In view of the different positions regarding issuance of the cards in question, stated by the representative of the Respondents during the hearings on 11.1.2016 and 17.3.2016 and by virtue of the power vested in us under Rule 11 (i) of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, we direct the CPIO to file a sworn affidavit to the Commission, spelling out in detail the role played by the Respondent Bank in the issuance of the cards in question as the CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 corporate agent of IFLIC, listing such information as is available with the Respondents in respect of the cards issued in response to the applications filed through them to IFLIC. The CPIO is also directed to file his written submissions on the following to the Commission:
(a) Why such information, as is available with the Respondents, cannot be provided to the Appellant in response to his RTI application?
(b) The type of information that the Respondents can access from IFLIC in terms of their agreement with them as a shareholder, together with the text of the clause(s) of the agreement, as per which such information can be accessed.
(c) Whether the Respondents receive any commission from IFLIC in respect of issuance of cards in response to the applications routed through them.
th
11. The matter is adjourned to be heard again on 27 May 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. The CPIO of the Respondent Bank is directed to be present in person during the next hearing along with officer(s) of the bank, who are well versed with the procedure of issuance of IFLIC cards in response to applications submitted through the Respondent Bank. The affidavit / written submissions of the CPIO, as per the preceding paragraph, should reach the Commission latest by 16.5.2016.
Hearing on 27.5.2016
12. The matter came up again on 27.5.2016. In keeping with the direction contained in paragraph 10 above, the CPIO has filed a sworn affidavit as well as written submissions to CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 the Commission. In the affidavit dated 13.5.2016, the CPIO has stated that the health prepaid cards are issued for cashless claim settlement to the Mediclaim policy holders issued by IFLIC and are mobilised from customers and noncustomers of the bank. The KYC documents are collected by IFLIC / bank from noncustomer policy holders. The affidavit gives general features of the card and states that nonpersonalised cards in lots are created and delivered to IFLIC. IFLIC in turn issue these cards to individual customers at the time of issuance of policy. Health cards were distributed along with policy documents and mailed directly to the customers by IFLIC. In the affidavit, the CPIO has also given information concerning the number of cards issued during the years 2011 12, 201213 and 201314. The Respondents clarified that this information is regarding the nonpersonalised cards delivered by them to IFLIC. In response to our query, they stated that the Respondent Bank delivers such nonpersonalised cards to the IFLIC because of the bank's arrangement with Visa / Master Card International. However, the cards are issued to the policy holders directly by IFLIC. The Appellant stated that the Respondents should provide him the number of the nonpersonalised cards issued by them. He also stated that the Respondents should show a card to the Commission to establish the facts.
13. In the written submissions also dated 13.5.2016, the CPIO has answered the three queries in paragraph 10 above. With regard to point (a), he has stated that non CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 personalised cards in lots are created by the bank and delivered to IFLIC. IFLIC in turn issue these cards to individual customers at the time of issuance of policy. Health cards were distributed along with policy documents and mailed directly to customers by IFLIC. The CPIO has provided the information available with the bank in respect of number of cards issued during 201112, 201213 and 201314. As stated above, the Respondents clarified that this information is regarding nonpersonalised cards issued by the bank to IFLIC. The CPIO has also stated that the above information cannot be provided to the Appellant as the same is held by the bank in confidence and fiduciary relationship and its disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party (IFLIC) and the larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of such information. The CPIO has, therefore, claimed exemption from disclosure of the above information under Section 8 (1)
(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. In response to point (b), the CPIO has stated that there is no such agreement entered into between the bank and IFLIC. Regarding point (c), the CPIO states that the bank is not receiving any commission from IFLIC in respect of issuance of the cards.
14. In his written submissions, the Appellant has stated that IFLIC is a public authority as per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act as the same is duly covered under Section 2 (h) (d) (II) which says nongovernment organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate government. He further states that 74% of the CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 equity of IFLIC is held by Andhra Bank and Bank of Baroda and both the banks are nationalised banks, controlled by the Central Government. IFLIC has a maximum of eleven directors, out of whom three directors including the Chairman of the Board are nominated by Bank of Baroda, two by the Andhra Bank and further four directors are to be appointed by Bank of Baroda, Andhra Bank and Legal and General Middle East Ltd. and this clearly shows that the two nationalised banks have majority of directors and, therefore, majority control over IFLIC. Majority shares of both the banks are held by the Central Government and hence IFLIC is indirectly financed by the appropriate government. The Appellant has also referred to the CIC decision dated 28.10.2009 titled Shri Nisar Ahmed Shaikh & Ors. vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.. He has also referred to paragraphs 36 and 37 of the judgment dated 2.2.2015 of the High Court of Delhi in Mother Dairy Fruit Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hatim Ali & Anr., Aseem Takyar.
15. In their written submissions dated 2.11.2015, the third party, IFLIC have stated that the primary issue for consideration before the Commission is whether IFLIC, by virtue of 74% of its aggregate shareholding being held by Andhra Bank and Bank of Baroda, would constitute a "public authority" under the RTI Act. It is stated that IFLIC is a joint venture company set up by Bank of Baroda, Andhra Band and Legal and General Middle East Ltd. (L&G). The contributions of both the banks are from the surplus funds available with them. The shareholding pattern of the joint venture partners is as follows: CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 Bank of Baroda 44% Andhra Bank 30% L&G 26% With reference to Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, the third party has stated that it is clear that subclauses (a) to (c) and (d) (ii) of Section 2 (h) are not applicable to IFLIC, as it has not been constituted under the Constitution of India or by any law made by Parliament of India or any State Legislature or by a notification issued by or order made by the appropriate government. IFLIC is also not a nongovernmental organization. Therefore, the only surviving question is whether IFLIC is 'a body owned, controlled or substantially financed' by the appropriate government in terms of Section 2 (h) (d) (i). It is contended that merely because the majority share holders of IFLIC are public authorities under the RTI Act would not automatically make IFLIC a public authority under the Act, unless it can be independently proved that IFLIC is 'owned', 'controlled' or 'substantially financed' by the appropriate government. In this connection, the third party has cited some cases to establish that IFLIC is not a public authority under the RTI Act. These cases are:
Commission's decision dated 15.2.2008 in Shri Manoj Kumar Kamra vs. IL&FS (CIC/AT/C/2007/00091), Commission's decision dated 8.2.2010 in Indubala Agarwal vs. National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Ltd. (CIC/LS/C/2009/000575), and the CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Hardicon Ltd. vs. Madan Lal [W.P.(C) 6946/2011]. It is also stated that as per the Articles of Association of IFLIC, its Board of Directors shall comprise a maximum of eleven directors, out of which three directors, including the Chairman of the board, are to be nominated by Bank of Baroda, two by Andhra Bank and two directors by L&G. Further, Bank of Baroda, Andhra Bank and L&G shall mutually agree and appoint four independent directors on the board. The twelfth director shall be the Chief Executive Officer of IFLIC. It has been argued that in view of the above and the judicial precedents referred to by the third party, it is manifest that IFLIC is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Discussion and Decision
16. We have considered the submissions of all the parties and would first deal with the issue of whether IFLIC qualifies as a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has relied on the judgment dated 2.2.2015 of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Mother Dairy [W.P.(C) 3110 of 2011]. In this judgment, the Court relied on the following key factors in arriving at the conclusion that Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. (MD) was a public authority under the RTI Act. The entire equity of MD is held by the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). Even though MD's Board of Directors manages its affairs, NDDB would exercise control over its affairs as its principal CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 shareholder. The preamble of the NDDB Act indicates that one of the objects of the Act was to merge the Indian Dairy Corporation with NDDB since the functions of the two bodies were complementary to each other. Section 42 of the NDDB Act provides that MD, Delhi would become a subsidiary unit of NDDB from the appointed date. The NDDB Act resulted in the dissolution of the Indian Dairy Corporation and consolidation of the initiatives made by the Central Government under the institution of NDDB. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, the Court explains how the Central Government has the exclusive power to constitute the Board of Directors of NDDB and comes to the conclusion that the Central Government retains complete control over NDDB and for all practical purposes, it is an instrumentality of the Central Government. It is stated that the entire share capital of MD is held by NDDB. Clause (5) of the Memorandum of Association of MD provides that its objective would be to assist NDDB in furthering NDDB's objectives. It is clear that the formation of MD was only for the purposes of corporatizing certain activities and undertakings, which were being managed directly as divisions of NDDB. The Court states that: "Plainly, NDDB is under the control of the Central Government and the petitioner (MD) being a subsidiary of NDDB would be indirectly under the control of the Central Government". In paragraph 35 of the judgment, the Court states: "Since the petitioner's undertaking (MD) had been set up by funds provided by the Central Government, the equity capital that is currently held by NDDB also owes its origin to the CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 assets funded by the Central Government". In the light of the above, the High Court came to the conclusion that Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. would be a public authority both on account of being substantially financed and controlled by the Central Government.
17. However, in our view, the ratio of the above judgment does not apply to the case before us. It is the judgment dated 12.3.2015 of the High Court of Delhi in Hardicon Ltd. vs. Madan Lal [W.P.(C) 6946/2011] which is germane to this case. In the above judgment, the High Court made the following observations: "14. The next question to be examined is whether the petitioner is substantially financed by the appropriate Government. In my view, this question must also be answered in the negative as there is no material to indicate that the petitioner has been indirectly funded by the appropriate Government. Undoubtedly, the Central Government has substantially funded the nationalized banks. However, it is equally true that the said banks have been funded to a significant extent by other shareholders.
Concededly, the petitioner has been promoted by its shareholders as a commercial entity to render consultancy services on a commercial basis. The petitioner is, clearly, a joint commercial venture by several entities.
15. The CIC held that as 61.5% of equity of the petitioner was subscribed by government owned entities and the same would meet the criteria of substantial financing by an appropriate Government. I find it difficult to agree with the said conclusion. Admittedly, the Government whether it be State Government or Central Government has not provided any direct funding to the petitioner. The question CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 whether the entity has been indirectly financed is to be determined on the facts of each case. In this case, there is no material to indicate any flow of funds from any government to the petitioner. In order to hold that an entity has been indirectly financed by an appropriate Government, first of all, it is necessary to find that the Central Government has parted with some funds for financing the authority/body; and secondly, the said funds have found their way to the authority/body in question. The link between the financing received by an entity and an appropriate Government must be clearly established.
16. In this case, there is no material to indicate that any of the funds received by the petitioner owed their source to either the Central Government or the State Government. The constituent shareholders of the petitioner are independent entities and whose source of funds are not limited to the Central Government/State Government. Although, substantial part of equity of nationalized banks is held by the Government, the sources of funds available to the bank are not limited to the Government alone. Banks receives substantial deposits as a part of their business. In addition, the banks also generate substantial income from their commercial activities. Such funds are also deployed by banks by lending and investing in other entries. Since the funds received by the petitioner by way of subscription to its equity cannot be traced to any Government. The conclusion that the government has indirectly provided substantial finance to the petitioner is not sustainable."
18. As is clear from the above observations, in order to hold that an entity has been indirectly financed by an appropriate Government, first of all, it is necessary to find that the Central Government has parted with some funds for financing the authority / body; and secondly, the said funds have found their way to the authority / body in question. The CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 link between the financing received by an entity and an appropriate Government must be clearly established. The High Court further observed in the above case that although substantial part of equity of nationalised banks is held by the Government, the sources of funds available to the bank are not limited to the Government alone. Banks receive substantial deposits as part of their business and also generate substantial income from their commercial activities. Such funds are also deployed by lending and investing in other entities. Further, since the funds received by Hardicon Ltd. by way of subscription to its equity could not be traced to any Government, the conclusion that the Government had indirectly provided substantial finance was not sustainable.
19. From the information obtained from the website of Bank of Baroda and Andhra Bank, the shareholding of Central Government / State Governments in these entities is 59.24% and 61.26% respectively. The remaining shareholding is of financial institutions, mutual funds and others. Further, these entitles also generate income from their commercial activates. There is nothing on record to establish a clear link between the financing received by IFLIC and an appropriate government. Therefore, shareholding of 74% by the above organizations in IFLIC does not qualify as substantial financing by the appropriate government within the scope of Section 2 (h) (d) (i) of the RTI Act. Further, even though these entities nominate directors to the Board of Directors of IFLIC, because of what is stated above regarding the shareholding of Bank of Baroda and Andhra Bank, CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 their presence on the Board of Directors cannot be regarded as substantial control by the appropriate government.
20. In view of the forgoing, we hold that IFLIC is not as public authority under the RTI Act.
21. We now come to the information, if any, that can be provided by the Respondent Bank, which is a public authority under the Act. The Respondents have claimed that other than the number of nonpersonalised cards handed over by them to IFLIC, they do not have any other information required by the Appellant. We do not see how disclosure of this information (number of nonpersonalised cards) involves either breach of a fiduciary relationship [Section 8 (1) (e)] or harm to the competitive position of a third party (IFLIC) [Section 8 (1) (d)], particularly since the information is regarding nonpersonalised cards given out by the Respondents. The Respondents surely put out a good deal of information concerning their business in their balance sheets, in keeping with the same practice followed by other commercial entities, and it cannot be said that the disclosure of this information harms their or anyone else's commercial interest. The three queries of the RTI application on which the Appellant wants information are examined in the light of the above. The RTI application begins with the statement that the Andhra Bank has entered into an agreement with M/s Indian First Life Insurance Company (IFLIC) and CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 issued cobranded cards, known as India First Health Card. In this context, at point No. 1, he has enquired about the total number of cards issued for 201112, 201213 and 2013
14. Clearly the query refers to the cards issued to policy holders and not the non personalised cards issued by the bank to IFLIC. Therefore, information on this point cannot be provided. The information sought at point No. 2 is the monthwise number of cobranded cards issued by the bank since it was launched. Since, it has been clarified by the Respondents and the third party that the cards are issued to customers directly by IFLIC, by implication the bank has issued no cards to customers other than the non personalised cards given to IFLIC. The information sought at point No. 5 is regarding the number of grievances received by the Respondent Bank from customers. The period for which this information is needed is not indicated, but on the basis of the information sought at point No. 1, by implication, it appears that the information required is for the years 201112 to 201314. There is no ground to deny this information. The CPIO of the Respondent Bank is directed to provide such information, as is available on records, to the Appellant, in response to point No.5 of the RTI application. The information should be provided, free of charge, within thirty days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
22. The Appellant wanted the Respondent Bank to show the card to the Commission. We do not see as to what purpose this would serve. However, we note that the CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 Respondents changed the position regarding issuance of cards to customers from what was stated in paragraphs 7 to what was stated subsequently in paragraph 9. Moreover, the Respondents have made certain statements, in response to the queries at paragraph 10 (a) to (c), in the CPIO's written submissions dated 13.5.2016. Therefore, the CPIO is directed to file a sworn affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant, stating the following, within ten days of the receipt of this order:
(i) The Respondent Bank does not have on its record any information other than the number of nonpersonalised cards issued, as mentioned in the CPIO's written submissions dated 13.5.2016.
(ii) There is no agreement between the Respondent Bank and IFLIC under which the bank, as a shareholder of IFLIC, can access the information concerning the cards from IFLIC.
(iii) The bank is not receiving any commission from IFLIC in respect of issuance of cards.
23. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
24. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner CIC/SH/A/2014/001704 Copy to: M/s India First Life Insurance Corporation Ltd.
C/o Ajit Warrier / Sandeep Grover / Tarunima Vijra), Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
Amarchand Towers, 216, Okhla Industrial Estate, PhaseIII, New Delhi 110020 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SH/A/2014/001704