Ramesh B Kamath vs Bank Of India on 15 December, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ramesh B Kamath vs Bank Of India on 15 December, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.11.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 04.07.2018 and first appeal dated 17.08.2018:-

(i) Is it true that on several occasions during the past six months Santosh R. Kamath and the applicant visited and discussed with the officials of Bank of India M G Road Branch including its Branch Manager regarding the request of Santosh Kamath for conversion of his sanctioned loan to PMAY category?

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Is it true that bank officials including the Branch Manager promised that the sanctioned loan can be converted to PMAY and asked for submission of a request letter and subsequently to submit a certificate from the Housing Society indicating the carpet area of the flat allotted to Santosh R Kamath for which the home loan has been sanctioned by Bank of India?

(iii) Is it true the above documents were submitted to Bank of India immediately after the receipt of oral instructions from the Branch Manager?

(iv) Is it true that Santosh R. Kamath has sent several e-mails to Bank of India, M G Road Branch since second week of February 2018 besides submitting to them the hard copy of request letter dated 08.01.2018 and hard copy of the certificate from the Housing Society dated 23.04.2018?

(v) Is it true that in email dated 02.04.2018 to Santosh R. Kamath, Bank had stated that the request of converting the loan can be considered favorably? If so on what basis was this mail given by the Branch?

(vi) Please give the reason as to why it took the Branch more than 6 months to intimate that Santosh R. Kamath is not eligible for converting his loan to PMAY category despite our repeated emails and repeated visits to your Branch when we were being promised that it will be done?

(vii) Name of the official/s who is / are responsible for the delay in taking action on the request of Santosh R. Kamath dated 08.01.2018 despite repeated follow ups?

(viii) The disbursal of loan to Shri Santosh R Kamath is yet to commence even though, loan was sanctioned in September 2016, the loan can be converted to PMAY category. Is it not purely on technical grounds that the Bank has now after six months rejected the request of Shri Santosh R. Kamath for conversion of his loan to PMAY category? Is it not against the spirit and the instruction Page 2 of 5 issued by the Central Government regarding implementation of PMAY scheme?

(ix) Who is the competent authority for converting the sanctioned loan from Bank of India MG Road Branch to PMAY category? Please provide the name, designation and address of the Authority.

(x) Copy of the detailed guidelines issued to various offices of Bank of India by their HQ regarding PMAY Scheme may kindly be furnished to me.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 04.07.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of India, Cochin, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO replied on 26.07.2018. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 17.08.2018. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of first appeal vide its order dated 17.09.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a second appeal dated 12.11.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 12.11.2018 inter alia on the grounds that denial of information by the CPIO was in gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. He further stated that the FAA instead of acting dispassionately and directing the CPIO to forthwith provide the information sought for had acted in a subservient manner to the CPIO. Further, the appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take appropriate action against the CPIO and the FAA as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act for willful denial of information.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 26.07.2018 replied that information sought was in the nature of queries which did not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. They further stated that information regarding bank's guidelines about the PMAY Scheme was available on their website www.bankofindia.co.in. The FAA vide his order dated 17.09.2018 agreed with the views taken by the CPIO.

Page 3 of 5

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent, Ms. Gayathri Devi M, Chief Manager, Bank of India, Ernakulam attended the hearing through video conferencing.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted/ reiterated the replies given by the CPIO and the FAA. They further submitted that under the provisions of the RTI Act, the CPIO is not supposed to answer the queries raised by the appellant in the RTI application.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that due reply has been given by the respondent vide their letter dated 26.07.2018. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that most of the queries raised in the RTI application were in the form of seeking opinions/explanations from the CPIO which did not squarely fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant neither filed any written submissions nor present before the Commission to controvert the averments made by the respondent and further agitate the matter. Hence, the submissions of the respondent are taken on record. The Commission further feels that there is no public interest in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेशचं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) दनांक/Date: 14.12.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, KERALAZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR -KADAVANTHRA ROAD, COCHIN -682 017 THE F.A.A, BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, KERALA ZONE, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR - KADAVANTHRA ROAD, COCHIN - 682 017 Ramesh B Kamath Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission