+ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ) 7 17, + W.P.(C) 7 49812007 & CM 1427 412007(stay) SBI CARDS & PAYMENTS SERVICES P.L'ID. ..... Petitioner Ttrough Mr. Abhinav Vasisht with Mr. Raman Kumar- Advocate. VETSUS MR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Respondent No. 1 in person. Through :Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate for R-2/SBI. I\ft. H.S. Parihar with Mr. K.S. Parihar" Advocate for R-3 to 4. 8. W.P.(C) 749912007 & CM 1427612007(stay) SBI CARDS & PAYMENTS SERVICES P.LTD. ..... Petitioner Through \{r. Abhinav Vasisht with 'Mr. Rarnan Kumar- Advocate. versus MR. ARIIN KUMAR VERMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Respondent No. I in person. Through: I\4r. S.L. Gupta,,A.dvocate for R-2/SBI. I\ft. H.S. Parihar with Mr. K.S. Parihar. Advocate for R-3 to 4. O 16. w.P.(c) 745u2oog STATE BAIIK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Tlrough Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate. versus MR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA & ORS. ..... Respondents Respondent No. I in person. Through: Mr. Abhinav Vasisht with Mr. Raman Kumar Advocate for R-2/SBI Cards. Mr. H.S. Parihar with Mr. K.S. Parihar, Advocate for R-3/SBI. ,/ 5. ,fi/.P.(C)732612007 &, CM 1392412007(stay) SBI COMMERCIAI & INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner IW(C) Nos. 7498, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 7326/2007 page 1 of I Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified o K, (" Through Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate. versus N4/S SAMMY TRADERS ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER L2.07.20t0 1. These four petitions arise out of similar facts and circumstances and are accordingly disposed of by this cornrnon order. 2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7498 of 2007 is by the SBI Cards & Payments Services P\rt. Ltd. (hereafter'the SBI Cards') challenging an order dated I't Septernber 2007, passed by' the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby the appeal of the Respondent No. I Arun Kumar Venna was disposed of by directing that the State Bank of India (SBI), Respondent No. 2 herein should decide whether the SBI Cards will designate its own Central Public Inforrnation Officers (CPlOs)/Appellate Authorities (AAs) or SBI itself will assnme the responsibility to designate those authorities to deal with the applications in respect of SBI Cards. It was directed that once SBI takes a decision within 15 days, it should cornmuniciite it to the CIC as well as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Respondent No. 4 herein. 3. Since the irnpugrred order dated 1" September 2007 is common to Appeal No. 866/ICPB|2007 titled Dileep Ayucltit v. Reserve Butk of Indiu, the SBI Cards has filed w.P. (C) 7499 of 2007 against the same ,W(C) Nos. 7498, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 7326/2007 Page 2 of 8 t), impugned order insofar as the said appeal is concerned. 4. W.P. (C) No. 7451 of 2008 by the SBI is directed against the satne order. 5. One other subsidiary of the SBI, i.e., SBI Commercial & International Bank Ltd. (hereafter 'the SBI Contmercial') has filed W.P. (C) 7326 ot 2007 challenging an order dated 24il' July 2OO7 passed by the CIC allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent therein and holding that the SBI Commercial is also a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Acq 2005 ('RTI Act'). 6. The cotnrnon question of la'w that arises in all these fotu petitions is whether a subsiCiary of a public authority could itself be considered a public authority fbr the purposes of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC has held that inasrnuch as the SBI is a public authority, both its subsidiaries, i.e., flre SBI Cards in which it holds 600/o share capital and SBI Commercial in which it holds majority shares are also public authoritics. 7. At the outset, it must be pointed out that the Respondent Sammy Traders in W.P. (C) 7326 of 2007 has apparently been ftrnished the information sought. Inasmuch as the Respondent Sammy Traders has no ftirther grievance, tJris court disposes of the said writ petition, leaving the question of law that arises open for decision in an appropriate case. In ,W(C) No s. 7 4 9 8, 7.1 9 -o/2 0 0 7, 7 4 5 1 /2 0 0 8 & 7 3 2 6,2 0 0 7 Page 3 of 8 7 otlrer words, the impugned order dated 24tL July 2007 passed by the CIC holding that the SBI Commercial is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,2005, will notbe treated as a precedent either for any other case against it before the CIC or in this Court. 8. W.P. (C) 7326 of 2007 is accordingly disposed of. CM No. 13924 of 2007 also stands disposed of. 9. As regards the other three writ petitions, this Court has heard the submissions of I\&. Abhinav Vasisht, the learned counsel appearing for the SBI Cards, Mr. S.L. Gupta, the learned cornsel appearing for the SBI and the Respondent Mr. Arun Kumar Verma who has appeared in person. '10. The genesis of the dispute is an application filed by Mr. Arun Kumar Venna under the RTI Act seeking to know from the SBI the following information: "i. In case SBI Cards is treated as private body, why the SBI cannot access the information sought as provided under Section 2(t) of the RTI Act; ii. The details as to the shareholding pattern of the SBI Cards; control of SBI over SBI Cards in the day to day frrnctioning, profit sharing etc. (Copies of RBI licence to SBI Cards & latest balance sheets filed with Registrar of Companies be provided); iii. Horv the acconnts of SBI Cards are being audited? ,W(C) Nos. 7498, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 7326/2007 Page 4 of I ,41 , How the SBI Cards is using the SBI's logo promotional activities, in case if the said company P\4. Ltd. cornpany." 11. The facts which are not in dispute are that Mr. Verma subscribed to the credit card issued by the Petitioner SBI Cards under the name 'SBI Card'. The brochure for subscribing to such card, a copy of which has been produced before the court, nowhere indicates that for the purposes of 'SBI Card', a separate company has been formed i.e., SBI Cards and that such company is a subsidiary of SBI. In other words, neither Mr. Venna nor any of the other subscribers would have been aware that they were being issued an 'SBI Card' by a subsidiary of SBI and not SBI itself. 12. As far as Mr. Verma is concerned, he proceeded on the footing that he had to deal with SBI as regards any dispute arising out of the use of the credit card or any settlernent of accounts. There was a dispute in this regard and without being aware that SBI Cards is a separate entity he filed the above application under the RTI Act with the SBI. 13. SBI replied to the above queries informing Mr. Verrna that SBI Cards was not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and that 'SBI Card' was issued by SBI Cards, a subsidiary of SBI. It appears that Mr. Verma wanted the cornplete statement of accounts of the nse of his SBI Card including the application filled out by him in the first instance. However, he was only provided with the statement of acconnt m is IW(C) Nos. 7498, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 7326/2007 Poge 5 of I lt.{ , for six months prior to the date of his application. This then led to the litigation which has reached this court in the form of the present petitions. 14. During the course of arguments, I\lk. Vasisht, the learned counsel appearing for the SBI Cards, has very fairly stated that they will have no problern in furnishing Mr. Venna a copy of the application foirn subrnitted by hirn to SBI Cards when the card was first issued to him as . well as the complete statement of account from day one. Mr. Venna states that he will be satisfied if this infonnation is supplied to hirn within a reasonable tirne. 15. In that view of the matter. it is directed that within ten days from today, SBI Cards will ftirnish to Mr. Verma a copy of the application form submitted by him to the SBI Cards at the tirne of issuance to hirn of the SBI Card as well as the cornplete statement of account frorn day one. 16. In view of the fact that the principal grievance of Mr. Verma has been taken care of satisfactorily, it is not necessary to detennine the question of law whether the SBI Cards is a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. That question can be left open for being decided in an appropriate case. Consequently, it is clarified that the impugned order datecl l't Septernber 2007 of the CIC holding SBI Cards to be a 'public authority' will not constitute a precedent either for any other case against the SBI Cards before the CIC or in this Court. IW(C) Nos. 7J98, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 73262007 Page 6 of I 2s, The question is left open for decision in an appropriate case. 17. Before concluding it must be observed that the brochure issued by the SBI Cards inviting strbscription to the SBI (Credit) Card gives no indication whatsoever that SBI has formed a separate subsidiary, SBI Cards, which is the company actually issuing the credit cards or that it is SBI Cards that is responsible for the maintenance of the accounts of the credit card holders. A reading of the brochrtre u'ould lead any person to think that SBI itself is issuing the SBI Card. The conftision is compouncled by the fact that the SBI's logo and tire name 'SBI Card' bears prominently on the credit card with no other indication that it is a separate company, SBI Cards, wirich has issued the card. 18. It is accordingly directed that the SBI Cards, i.e., the Petitioner lrerein, as well as the SBI (Respondent No. 2 herein) will hereafter ensrue that any brochure or advertisement or parnphlet issued inviting subscriptions to the SBI Card will clearly indicate that thc said credit cards are being iss';ed by a separate entity, i.o., the SBI Cards which is a subsidiary of SBi and r,vhich subsidiary alone is responsible for the issuance of the credit card.s and for all disputes arising in relation to such credit cards. This infonnation will be prominently displayed in the brochure and elsewhere in the advertisement issued for the 'SBI Ca.rd'. 19. Wilh ttre above directions and ,W(C) Nos. 7J98, 7499/2007,7451/2008 & 7326/2007 clarifications, flrese tluee r''rrit Page 7 of 8 *\. petitions are disposed of with costs of Rs. 5,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioner SBI Cards to the Respondent No. I Mr. Anrn Knmar Verma within a period of ten days from today. A11 the pending applications are disposed of. S. MURALIDHAR, J. JULY l2,2oro ak IW(C) Nos. 7.198, 7.199/2007,7451/2008 & 732612007 Puge I of I