Babu Rao vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 January, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Babu Rao vs Reserve Bank Of India on 25 January, 2021

1. The issues (prayer) under consideration in the appeal dated 10.02.2020 filed by the Bajaj Finance Ltd. (the appellant bank) as an aggrieved party against the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the First Appellate Authority, are as under:-

a) Set aside the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the CPIO and the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the FAA be set aside and the Application of the RTI applicant be rejected.

b) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

1.1. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court vide order dated 17.07.2020 passed in W.P. (C) 4296/2020. The operative part of the directions of the High Court reads as under:

"In view of the foregoing and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition and the application are disposed of with a direction that till the first date of effective hearing of the appeal of the petitioner by the CIC-the respondent Page 1 of 6 no.5, the operation of the impugned letter/order dated 18.03.2020 shall remain stayed. It is made clear that on the appeal being taken up for hearing by the CIC, the CIC shall be at liberty to pass any appropriate orders as may be required on the merit of the petitioner's case. The writ petition and the pending application stand disposed of accordingly,"

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that one Mr. Rahil Shah filed an application dated 10.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai seeking following information:

• Inspection Reports made by RBI post completing the inspection of commercial banks and following banks/NBFCs:

         (i)       HDFC Bank.
         (ii)      RBL Bank.
         (iii)     Yes Bank.
         (iv)      Axis Bank.
         (v)       ICICI Bank.
         (vi)      Bajaj Finance.
         (vii)     State Bank of India.
         (viii) Bank of Baroda.
         (ix)      Indus lnd Bank.
         (x)       Kotak Mahindra Bank.
         (xi)      HDFC Ltd.

The CPIO vide letter dated 16.08.2019 communicated to Bajaj Finance Ltd. seeking their written submissions. The appellant bank filed first appeal dated 09.10.2019. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal vide order dated 15.11.2019. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 10.02.2020 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 10.02.2020 inter alia on the grounds that the CPIO's decision and the FAA's order was passed in violation and ignorance of the law.

Page 2 of 6

4. The CPIO, RBI, vide letter dated 16.08.2019 issued notice to the appellant bank under section 11 of the RTI Act seeking submissions as to whether information may be disclosed or not. Subsequently, the CPIO, RBI took decision to disclose the information sought and communicated the same vide letter dated 29.08.2019. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.11.2019 dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant bank. Hearing on 16.09.2020 4.1. The appellant's advocates Shri Ramji Srinivasan and Shri Anand Srivastava and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Abhay Kumar, CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through audio conference.

Interim order dated 17.09.2020 4.2. The Commission has passed the following observations and directions on 17.09.2020:

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records including the Delhi High Court order dated 17.07.2020, acceded to the request of the appellant seeking stay on the CPIO's order dated 16.08.2019 and FAA's order dated 15.11.2019. The appellant is directed to file their written submissions before the Commission after serving copies thereof upon the respondent within three weeks. The respondent may also file their counter submissions within three weeks from date of receipt of the submissions from the appellant bank. It may be noted that the matter involves substantial questions of law determination of which require detailed submissions from parties as well as their presence either in person or through video conference. In view of this, the operation of the CPIO's reply dated 29.08.2019 and FAA's order dated 15.11.2019 shall remain stayed till further orders.

Accordingly, the matter is adjourned to 22.12.2020.

Hearing on 22.12.2020

5. The appellant bank was represented by Shri Anand Srivastava (Advocate) and Shri Rakesh Sinha (Advocate) attended the hearing in person and on behalf of the respondent Shri Abhay Kumar, General Manager & CPIO and Abhijeet Kaushal, Legal Officer, Reserve Bank of India, attended the hearing through video conference.

Page 3 of 6

5.1. The appellant inter alia challenged the impugned order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the FAA on the basis of the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2015 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jayantilal N. Mistry Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Girish Mittal case wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, observed that the RBI is duty bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and to disclose the information, i.e. the inspection reports regarding Banks sought under the provisions of the RTI Act. They stated that the FAA had completely failed to notice the statutory provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the RBI Act relating to NBFCs and mechanically applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayantilal N. Mistry case (supra)/ Girish Mittal case (supra) which dealt with the inspection reports qua the Banks and not NBFCs like the Appellant Company. They further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 18.12.2019 has stayed its decision dated 16.12.2015 in Jayantilal N. Mistry case (supra) (on the basis of which the FAA had passed its Order dated 15/11/2019) and directed that the Inspection Reports/Risk Assessment Reports/Annual Financial Inspection Reports of the Banks including State Bank of India shall not be released by the Reserve Bank of India until further orders. They informed that the aforesaid matter is to be listed in the Supreme Court some time in January 2021.

5.2. The respondent while presenting their case inter alia reiterated that the decision of the CPIO to disclose the Inspection Reports of Bajaj Finance Ltd., relating to the year 2016 to 2019 was legally valid and was not in violation of the interim order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 2342 /2019 in Transfer Case No. 91 of 2015 (Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry and Others & HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others) and Writ Petition (C) No. 1159 of 2019 (HDFC Bank and Others. v. Union of India and Others). The appellant herein is not a party to the above proceeding before Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the said order dated 18.12.2019 did not automatically get extended to the appellant.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, notes that RBI expressed their desire to disclose the information sought by the original applicant i.e., Mr. Rahil Shah on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jayantilal N. Misty & Anr. vs. Reserve Bank of India in Page 4 of 6 16.12.2015. It is noted that this order was recalled in Miscellaneous Application No (s) 2342 of 2019 in TC (C) No. 91/2015 (Reserve Bank of India Vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry & Anr.) and likely to be listed in January 2021. Moreover, the original applicant i.e., Mr. Mr. Rahil Shah who filed the application dated 10.07.2019 was also not served hearing notice. Hence, in the interest of justice and acceding to the request of the appellant bank, the instant matter is adjourned. Further, the appellant bank is directed to file their written submissions before the Commission after serving copies thereof upon the respondent within three weeks and thereafter, the respondent may also file their counter submissions within three weeks from date of receipt of the submissions from the appellant bank. The operation of the CPIO's reply dated 29.08.2019 and FAA's order dated 15.11.2019 shall remain stayed till further orders. The Registry of this bench is directed to send hearing notice to the RTI applicant Shri Rahil Shah and ensure his attendance on the next date of hearing.

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

Sd/-

                                                                                     सुरेश चं ा)
                                                                  (Suresh Chandra) (सु        ा
                                                                                  सूचना आयु )
                                                       Information Commissioner (सू
                                                                        दनांक/Date: 25.01.2021

Authenticated true copy

R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७)


Addresses of the parties:
CPIO :
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DEPTT. OF NON BANKING SUPERVISION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005




                                                                                       Page 5 of 6
 THE F.A.A,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DEPTT. OF NON BANKING SUPERVISION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI - 400 005

BABU RAO
C/O BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE EXT.
3RD FLOOR, PANCHSHIL TECH PARK,
VIMAN NAGAR, PUNE (M.H.) - 411 014

RAHIL SHAH




                                     Page 6 of 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission