Patel Pradipkumar Rajendraprasad vs Bank Of Baroda on 31 March, 2022

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Patel Pradipkumar Rajendraprasad vs Bank Of Baroda on 31 March, 2022

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 13.11.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 26.07.2019 and first appeal dated 05.09.2019:-

(i) Give the name of competent authority who has power of approval and rejection of PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) subsidy.

(ii) Reason due to which condition (give circular of violating the condition) he was not eligible for PMAY Subsidy.

(iii) Give circular or guideline of your bank even he was not fulfill the criteria as per the bank's observation, the bank can't forward his application for subsidy Page 1 of 5 to competent authority who have power to take decision of approval or rejection of PMAY Subsidy application.

(iv) Give number of customers who applied for PMAY subsidy, number of customer's subsidy approved, number of customer's subsidy pending for approval number of customer's subsidy request rejected, and number of customer's application rejected by the bank without sending to consent authority who took home loan form Bank of Baroda in Bharuch district.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 26.07.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Bharuch, seeking aforesaid information. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.08.2019 replied to the appellant. Aggrieved with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 05.09.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 23.09.2019 disposed of the first appeal. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2019 provided revised reply. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 13.11.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 13.11.2019 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.08.2019 and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "The approval/rejection of the subsidy under PMAY Scheme does not pertain to our department/bank.

(ii) Reason for a decision is in the nature of explanation- and thus the same is not covered under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.

Page 2 of 5

(iii) The internal circular of bank is not meant for circulation in public domain. The demand is denied as per section 8(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

(iv) Since, collecting such information will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, the same cannot be provided under Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005."

The FAA vide order dated 23.09.2019 directed the CPIO to re-examine the subject matter of the RTI application and dispose of the same on merits within 15 days. In compliance of the FAA's order, the CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2019 provided revised point-wise information/reply and the same is reproduced as under:-

(i) "Government of India/Government entity/ NHB.

(ii) The claim has been returned due to non-availability of female ownership in the property to be purchased.

(iii) The detailed circulars/ scheme details may be accessed on the website of 'Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation'.

(iv) The data with respect to your query no. 4 cannot be provided as the same will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and thus the same is denied under section 7(9) of 'The Right to Information Act, 2005.'"

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri V K Choudhary, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bharuch, attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the respondent on point no. 4 of the RTI application only as the respondent had arbitrarily denied the information.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.08.2019 and 30.09.2019. Against point no. 4 of the RTI application, the respondent informed that information sought was not available with them and collecting such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority Page 3 of 5 therefore they expressed their inability to provide the information under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observed that the respondent had provided point- wise reply to the RTI application vide letters dated 21.08.2019 and 30.09.2019. The appellant during the course of hearing pressed for the information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application. Perusal of the records reveals that the respondent had denied the information on point no. 4 of the RTI application on the ground that disclosure of information would divert the resources of the bank and therefore they claimed exemption under section 7 (9) of the RTI Act. On point no. 4, the appellant sought only the number of customers who applied for PMAY subsidy, number of customers whose subsidy were approved, number of customers' subsidy were pending for approval and number of customer's subsidy request rejected etc. All these were general information which should have been maintained by the bank in compliance of the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act. Moreover, the respondent had not claimed that data was not available with them. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised information/reply to the appellant on point no. 4 of the RTI application, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुरेश चं ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक/Date:31.03.2022 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Baroda, Regional Manager, Bharuch Region, Hotel Skyline Building, Near College Road, Bharuch -392001 First Appellate Authority, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Bhavan, Zonal Office, Baroda, 5th Floor, R C Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara - 390007 Patel Pradipkumar Rajendraprasad Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission