Central Information Commission
Sanju vs State Bank Of India on 26 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/664170
Sanju ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
SBI, ASSISSTANT MANAGER,
RACPC, SBI, ALIGANJ,
LUCKNOW, UP- 226001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22/09/2023
Date of Decision : 22/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 07/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 29/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 07/09/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.06.2022 seeking information in connection with non-receipt of subsidy on home loan under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana in account no. 39738005593.
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 07.07.2022 stating as under:1
"The housing loan was disbursed to you on 16.10.2020 for the purchase of land and subsequently (Partially) for construction of house thereon 25.02.2021, you had applied in November 2021 to get the subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. As per the information given in the application form, your application comes under MIG-2 category whereas MIG-2 category was valid only till 31.03.2021."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.07.2022. FAA's order, dated 07.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Anand Prasad , AGM & CPIO present through video-conference.
The Appellant at the outset narrated her grievance regarding non- receipt of PMAY subsidy claim on home loan despite repeated reminders to the SBI officials, which led her to the filing of instant RTI Application. Now, she is aggrieved with the fact that the CPIO has not provided her specific desired information.
The CPIO submitted that it has already been intimated to the Appellant that "The housing loan was disbursed to you on 16.10.2020 for the purchase of land and subsequently (Partially) for construction of house thereon 25.02.2021, you had applied in November 2021 to get the subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. As per the information given in the application form, your application comes under MIG-2 category whereas MIG-2 category was valid only till 31.03.2021." No additional information is left at their end.
Decision:
The Commission upon hearing the submissions of the CPIO and on perusal of records observes that the relief claimed by the Appellant in the instant Appeal is not as much as about seeking specific access to information per se as it is about 2 redressal of Appellant' grievance regarding non-receipt of subsidy on home loan under PMAY scheme and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the reply furnished by the CPIO as per his wisdom is as per the provisions of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understanding of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. In this regard, her attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, 3 as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no further action is warranted in the instant matter.
Nonetheless, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the Appellant is advised to address the matter through administrative mechanism.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) 4 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5