Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Ravi Kiran vs Bank Of Baroda on 17 December, 2021

Author: Suresh Chandra

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2019/131052
Ravi Kiran                                        ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                  VERSUS
                                   बनाम
CPIO: Bank of Baroda,
Dehradun                                                ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 09.02.2019            FA     : 06.04.2019            SA      :   24.06.2019

CPIO : No Reply             FAO : 29.04.2019               Hearing :   09.12.2021


                                      CORAM:
                                Hon'ble Commissioner
                              SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                     ORDER

(16.12.2021)

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.06.2019 include non-receipt of the following information sought by the appellant through the RTI application dated 09.02.2019 and first appeal dated 06.04.2019:-

 "Ravi Kiran has got sanctioned a housing loan under PMAY, Account No. ***********743 with Bank of Baroda (Haridwar- 249401) Provide him the status of his PMAY subsidy under Account No. ***********743".

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 09.02.2019 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bank of Baroda, Dehradun, seeking aforesaid information.

Page 1 of 3

The CPIO did not reply to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant filed first appeal dated 06.04.2019. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) vide order dated 29.04.2019 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a second appeal dated 24.06.2019 before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant has filed the instant appeal dated 24.06.2019 inter alia on the grounds that he had followed up with the National Housing Board regarding their subsidy claim application, however, the NHB had communicated to him on 27.03.2019 that no record marching the information provided by the appellant had been uploaded by the Primary Lending Institution on the PMAY-CLSS portal maintained by NHB on 26.03.2019, hence, there was no information with them to furnish. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information and take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. Perusal of the records revealed that the CPIO did not reply to the appellant. The FAA vide order dated 29.04.2019.

5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri Vipul Srivastva, Law Officer, Shri Anup Sharma, CPIO, Bank of Baroda, Dehradun attended the hearing through video conference.

5.1. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied on 13.05.2019 to the appellant, however, the same was not uploaded by the appellant along with his second appeal. The respondent further stated that they had forwarded the subsidy claim to the National Housing Board for further processing and informed the same to the appellant on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, the appellant was again informed vide letter dated 13.05.2019 that the loan account xxxxxx6743 was reported as takeover/balance transfer case, hence, was placed on hold. The Nodal Agency had advised that take over cases may be kept on hold and may be taken up after for further clarification.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the respondent vide letter 22.02.2019 Page 2 of 3 had informed the appellant that the claim subsidy was forwarded by the bank to NHB. Further, perusal of records also revealed that the respondent vide letter dated 13.05.2019 informed the appellant about the status of loan account xxxxx6743 and the same was also uploaded on the Commission's web portal. However, the appellant claimed that he had not received any communication in that regard. In view of the above, the respondent is directed that certified copies of letters dated 22.02.2019 and 13.05.2019 may be sent to the appellant again within two weeks from date of receipt of this order. With these 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: 16.12.2021 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराम मूत ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

CPIO : BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE (DEHRADUN REGION), 410, INDRANAGAR COLONY, DEHRADUN, DISTT-DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND- 248001.
FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY, BANK OF BARODA ZONAL OFFICE (BAREILLY ZONE), 1ST FLOOR, 129-D, CIVIL LINE, BAREILLY, U.P.-24300 SH. RAVI KIRAN Page 3 of 3