-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2011 ICICI Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner vs. S.S. Vohra and others ...Respondents Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.R. Kaushik, instructed by M/s. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Vohra, respondent No.1, in person. Mr. Shyam Mehta with Mr. Mihir Mody and Ms. Luann Crasto, instructed by M/s. K. Ashar & Company, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. S.P. Waghmode, PRO, Department of Post present. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED , JJ. DATE: MARCH 23, 2011. P.C. Though the matter is shown on the Board under the caption “for orders”, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up on Board for hearing. Rule. Respondents waive service of Rule. -2- 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Central Information Commission (“CIC”), New Delhi, dated 6th December, 2010, by which Central Information Public Officer of the Reserve Bank of India was directed to provide respondent No.1, who was the original appellant before the CIC, within 10 days from the receipt of the said order, the photo copies of the advisory notes issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Petitioner during the preceding two years for the violation of any RBI guidelines or for contravention of the provisions of the FEMA and PMLA. The Central Information Public Officer of the Reserve Bank of India was also directed to provide details of the Banks which had been found to have committed any violation of the provisions of the above laws including the penalty, if any, imposed in each case during the same period of preceding two years. 3. During the course of hearing, Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, states that the information regarding penalty has already been published on the website and is available to the general public for information. 4. This petition is filed by the ICICI Bank Limited, a third party, on the ground that without hearing the third party, the impugned order could not have been passed. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has also filed a review application seeking revocation of the said order. However, the said -3- prayer of the petitioner was turned down by an order dated 31st December, 2010, which order is at Exhibit-C, at page 24-F of the paper book. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this petition. 5. Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that there are certain information which are confidential and if it is disclosed, it will adversely affect the commercial interest of the Bank and ultimately it may hamper the working of the Bank. He has invited our attention to Section 19 (4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter “the Act”), which provides as under. “ If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party”. 6. It is not in dispute that before passing the first order, the notice was not issued to the petitioner-third party and as per the provisions of Section 19 (4) of the said Act, the Central Information Commissioner shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the third party. Even for the first time, the CIC can issue notice to the third party and consider the objections so received. That was not done in the instant case when the first order was passed. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned counsel appearing for -4- respondent Nos. 5 and 6 states that information regarding penalty, etc. are already placed on website. Regarding other information like advisory note, it is confidential in nature and under the provisions of the RBI Act, 1934, the Reserve Bank of India is not supposed to provide such information as it may have serious consequences. 7. Respondent No.1, party-in-person, submitted that in the review petition filed by the petitioner, CIC has already given hearing to the petitioner. He submits that, however, such information can also be disclosed under the Act. 8. Since no notice was given to the third party as contemplated under Section 19 (4) of the Act, we deem it proper to remit the matter back to the CIC with a direction to take a fresh decision. The fresh decision may be taken after hearing the petitioner, respondent No.1 as well as the Reserve Bank of India. If any party wants to place on record any further material, the same can be placed before the CIC. The appropriate decision may be taken expeditiously within three months from today. The impugned orders at Exhibits-A and C are accordingly quashed and set aside. In view of what is stated above, the CIC may decide the matter de novo. Rule is made absolute accordingly. -5- 9. Since the impugned orders of CIC are set aside, the Department of Post i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 may hand over the packet to the Reserve Bank of India forthwith. We express no opinion on merits. It is for the CIC to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.