Central Information Commission
P. Varun Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 10 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No.
P. Varun Kumar ... अपीलकता/Appellant
...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: State Bank Of India,
Suryapet, Telangana ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal/Complaint:
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No./Com Reply Appeal Order Appeal/Co
plaint mplaint
1. 05.08.2024 03.09.2024 13.09.2024 Not on 03.11.2024
648434
record
2. 05.08.2024 03.09.2024 13.09.2024 Not on 03.11.2024
648429
record
3. 05.08.2024 03.09.2024 Not on Not on 07.10.2024
644578
record record
4. 05.08.2024 03.09.2024 Not on Not on 07.10.2024
644574
record record
Note - The above-mentioned Appeal/complaint have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Date of Hearing: 07.10.2025
Date of Decision: 09.10.2025
Page 1 of 7
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/648434 Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2024/644578
1. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please provide the legal provisions for granting mortgage loans against non-
agricultural lands (without DTCP approval).
2. Can government employees be granted bank loans against non-agricultural lands (without DTCP approval) based on their salary accounts?
3. If government employees are eligible for bank loans based on their salary accounts for home construction, is there a possibility of granting loans against non-agricultural lands (without DTCP approval)?
4. If government employees are eligible for bank loans based on their salary accounts for personal loans, is there a possibility of granting loans against non- agricultural lands (without DTCP approval)?
5. Please provide the legal provisions for granting mortgage loans against DTCP approved residential plots to government employees based on their salary accounts.
..., etc./ other related information 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your RTI application dated 05.08.2024, we hereby inform that you have paid the court fee. Hence, you are advised to pay applicable RTI fee and resubmit your RTI application."Page 2 of 7
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 1.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 07.10.2024 & 03.11.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/648429 Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2024/644574
2. The Appellant/Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Can you provide a personal or home construction loan against non-agricultural land (without DTCP approval) located in a town or village that is outside the bank's Jurisdiction (and possibly within a different municipal area)?
2. If a government employee working within the bank's jurisdictional area wants to mortgage a non-agricultural land (without DTCP approval) located in a town or village outside the bank's jurisdiction (and possibly within a different municipal area), can you provide them with a personal or home construction loan?
3. If a government employee working outside the bank's jurisdictional area wants to mortgage a non-agricultural land (without DTCP approval) located in a town or village outside the bank's jurisdiction (and possibly within a different municipal area), can you provide them with a personal or home construction loan?
4. Have you granted a home construction loan or a personal loan against the non-
agricultural land (without DTCP approval) located in Survey Number 645, Plot Number 61 (The Plot was registered on Mr. Shree Dharavath Bhagavan), Suryapet municipal limits, with document numbers 1957/2012 and 5413/2015 of Page 3 of 7 SRO Suryapet (2309)? If yes, please provide the mortgage documents within the scope of the RTI.
5. Have you obtained documents/receipts related to the (LRS) charges or any other charges for the land mortgaged against the loan granted for Survey Number 645, Plot Number 61 (The Plot was registered on Mr. Shree Dharavath Bhagavan), Suryapet municipal limits, with document numbers 1957/2012 and 5413/2015 of SRO Suryapet (2309)?
..., etc./ other related information 2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your RTI application dated 05.08.2024, we hereby inform that you have paid the court fee. Hence, you are advised to pay applicable RTI fee and resubmit your RTI application"
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant/Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 13.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 2.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal/Complaint dated 07.10.2024 & 03.11.2024.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision:
3. The Appellant/Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent A. Narayan Rao, Assistant General Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
4. The respondent while defending their case inter alia endorsed the replies given by the CPIO and reiterated the following written submissions:
"2. It is respectfully submitted that the CPIO, Suryapet Region, SBI vide his letter dt. 03/09/2024 advised the applicant to pay applicable RTI Fee and resubmit the RTI Application. It is respectfully submitted that the Central Government as well as State Governments are empowered under Section 27 of the RTI Act, to issue rules Page 4 of 7 regarding payment of fee to seek information under the RTI Act. The rules notified by the Central Government shall be applicable to the public authorities falling under the domain of Central Government. Similarly, the rules notified by the State Governments shall be applicable to the respective public authorities falling under the domain of State Government. The Bank, being a body corporate constituted by a law made by the Parliament, Central Government is the appropriate Authority under RTI Act. Therefore, the rules prescribed by the Central Government under "The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, are applicable to the Bank and as per the said rules the application under section 6(1) of the Act, should be accompanied by requisite fee by way of cash or by demand draft or by IPO only. The notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms. No.740 dt. 01/10/2007 amending the AP Information (Regulations of Fee and Cost) Rules, to accept the court fee stamps towards application and cost for providing information is applicable to the public authorities falling under the domain of the State Government. Hence, the Court Fee Stamps are not prescribed mode and therefore, this CPIO has advised the applicant to resubmit the applicable by paying the requisite fee in acceptable mode.
It is respectfully submitted that as per Rule 6 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, fee under these rules may be paid in any of the following manner, namely:- (a) in cash. (b) by demand draft or hankers cheque or Indian Poetal Order or (c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority, if facility for receiving fees through electronic means is available with the public authority. In the present case, the applicant has paid the requisite fee by affixing court fee stamp, which may not be correct mode of payment.
In respect of appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant informed that on 13/09/2024 he has appealed to the Branch Manager, Neredcheria Branch seeking the information. It is respectfully submitted that Branch Manager, Neredcheria confirmed that he has not received any such appeal from the applicant and moreover the applicant has not Page 5 of 7 submitted any acknowledgement to show that he has submitted appeal. Even otherwise, the Branch Manager, Neredcheria is not the Appellate Authority for our Bank under the RTI Act. The General Manager(NW-II), LHD, Koti Hyderabad is the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it appears that the applicant has not approached the appropriate Authority under RTI Act. It is respectfully submitted that the CPIO has advised the applicant to resubmit the application with proper fee payment and this CPIO has neither rejected nor denied the information sought by the applicant. On this ground itself the present appeal is liable to be closed. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted that the information sought by the applicant is more inquisitive in nature and such information do not fall under the definition "Information" defined under Section 2
(f) of the RTI Act. Further, information sought by the applicant is relating to personal and home construction loans and such information may not possible to provide under the RTI Act because the applicant sought information from questions serial number 1 to 7 on many parameters which can be provided case to case basis depending upon the documents provided by the applicant, by his eligibility, applicable guidelines issued by the Bank from time to time and taking other factors into consideration.
...
7. It is pertinent to mention that our Bank is member of the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India. This is a Code of Customer Rights, which sets minimum standards of banking practices we will follow as a member of BCSBI while dealing with individual customers. It provides protection to customers and explains how a member bank is required to deal with customers in its day-to-day operations. As such, we have committed to the customer that we will treat all personal information of the customers as private and confidential subject to matters mentioned in Chapter 5 on Privacy and Confidentiality therein."
5. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant failed to file valid IPO along with RTI applications, despite the CPIO's communications sent to the appellant.
Page 6 of 7Therefore, the initial replies given by the CPIO in all four cases are found in order. Accordingly, the second appeals & complaints arising out of the RTI applications filed without valid IPO are dismissed/rejected as non-maintainable.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 09.10.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, State Bank Of India, CPIO, Regional Office-Surayapet, H. No. 1-6-77, 1ST FLOOR, V. T. Road, Suryapet, Telangana508213 2 P. Varun Kumar Annexure of Second Appeals/Complaint Sl. No. Second Appeal/Complaint No. 1 CIC/SBIND/A/2024/648434 2 CIC/SBIND/A/2024/648429 3 CIC/SBIND/C/2024/644578 4 CIC/SBIND/C/2024/644574 Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)