Onicra Credit Information Company Limited v. Reserve Bank of India

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J APRIL 21, 2016

"pp"..

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 21st April, 2016 + ONICRA CREDIT INFORMATION COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amish Tandon, Ms. Shruti Aggarwal and Ms. Lipika, Advs. versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kuldeep Parihar, Mr. H.S. Parihar and Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 10th March, 2016 the following order was passed:- "1. The petition impugns the order dated 17th July, 2009 of the respondent Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Section 5(2) of the Act rejecting the application of the petitioner for Certificate of Registration as a Credit Information Company (CIC) as well as the order dated 1st June, 2011 of the Appellate Authority under Section 7 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 dismissing the appeal preferred by petitioner thereagainst. 2. The petition was entertained and pleadings have been completed. 3. Hearing was commenced and the senior counsel for the petitioner has been partly heard and the provisions of the Act perused. 4. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the Act aforesaid of the year 2005, the respondent RBI had in the year 2007, for the first time, invited applications for registration under Section 3 as a CIC and the petitioner had applied thereunder but was wrongfully rejected and the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. 5. However, on going through the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations, it appears that there is no requirement of the respondent RBI inviting applications for registration and the position is that as and when any person desirous of carrying on business of credit information applies to the respondent RBI for registration, the respondent RBI is required to consider the said application on its merits and as per the conditions prescribed and pass an order thereon and against which order an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority under Section 7 of the Act. 6. Being of the view that even if merit was to be found in the case of the petitioner, of the petitioner having been wrongfully denied registration way back in the years 2007-2008, a direction today to the respondent RBI to register the petitioner cannot be given, without the respondent RBI satisfying itself that the petitioner as of today i.e. after nearly ten years continues to meet the requisite parameter, I have enquired from the senior counsel for the respondent RBI as to why a fresh application of the petitioner cannot be considered for registration. 7. The senior counsel for the petitioner in this regard has also drawn attention to the order dated 13th August, 2015 recording the statement of the senior counsel for the petitioner to write to the Chief General Manager of the respondent RBI in this regard for consideration. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that though such a representation was made but no action has been taken thereon. 8. Though the senior counsel for the respondent RBI has drawn attention to Section 5(3) of the Act empowering the RBI to determine the total number of CICs which may be granted Certificate of Registration and also empowering the RBI to review the said decision from time to time and the senior counsel for the respondent RBI has drawn attention to page 154 of the paper book recording the statement of the Finance Minister that in the beginning he expected three to four such CICs but it appears that the same is not a determination under Section 5(3) of the Act. Moreover, even if it were such a determination, determination of the year 2007 cannot today i.e. after nine years therefrom, cannot be a determination of requirement today, especially when the mode of carrying on business and the business through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been increased manifold in the said nine years. 9. It thus appears that rather than deciding the petition