Suresh Chandra, IC:— The Appellant Bank of India., filed second appeal dated 03.09.2020 as an aggrieved party against the order of the First Appellate Authority, RBI dated 27.8.2020, communicated vide Respondent's letter dated 1.9.2020.
2. The Appellant submitted that the respondent vide their orders dated 27.8.2020 informed him of their intention to disclose the information sought by the RTI Appellant, Shri Ashok Kumar Pandya.
3. The Appellant prayed that they had made a prima facie case and disclosure of information and documents sought by the applicant would cause irreparable loss to the appellant bank, in case the operation of the order of the First Appellate Authority is not stayed.
4. The Commission passed the following directions on 30.09.2020:
“The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the appellant bank has prayed for interim order restraining the CPIO from releasing the information in terms of RTI application. In terms of the prayer, the second appeal is admitted and keeping in view of the urgency, the operation of the CPIO's reply dated 23.6.2020 and FAA's order dated 10.7.2020 are stayed till further orders.”
Hearing on 02.02.2021:
5. The appellant Adv. Saju Jakob, Adv. Nancy Shah, Adv. Ekta Bharati and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vinod Kumar DGM, Ms. Nitika Gokula Law Officer; and the original RTI applicant Shri Ashok Kumar Pandya, attended the hearing through video conference.
5.1. The RTI applicant Shri Ashok Kumar Pandya requested the Commission to direct the appellant bank i.e. Bank of India to make him available copy of their petition/second appeal filed before the Commission.
5.2. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information sought in the RTI application may not be disclosed as the same would result in jeopardizing competitive position and interests of the RBL Bank Ltd. Further, similar issue as raised in this matter was pending before the Supreme Court and was listed for hearing before the Supreme Court on 18.02.2021.The appellant requested the Commission to extend the stay on FAA's order until further directions of the Supreme Court. Further, the appellant raised objections on furnishing copy of the second appeal along with annexures as it contained information prima face sought in the RTI application, and the disclosure of the same would render the appeal infructuous.
5.3. The respondent submitted that they were also inclined to await the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter whereupon similar issues were pending for consideration.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the issue of disclosing financial statements, inspection reports of banks including private and PSU banks was sub judice before the Supreme Court. Both parties had agreed to wait until further directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, any direction of the Commission may preempt the issue though the appellant was not party to the case pending before the Supreme Court (as revealed during the course of hearing). However, it may be premature to take a view in this matter.
6.1. Keeping in view the principles of natural justice and the fact that Shri Ashok Kumar Pandya is the original RTI applicant, the Commission is of the view that a copy of the second appeal filed by the Bank of India before the Commission be made available to him by the appellant bank after redacting all annexures and information relating to the records sought in the RTI application referred to in their petition, if any, within three weeks. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned.
7. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.