Central Information Commission
Lalit Joshi vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 12 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/HUDCO/C/2023/630423
Lalit Joshi ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
HUDCO Ltd, Core 7-A, HUDCO
Bhawan, India Habitat Centre,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.09.2024
Date of Decision : 11.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 19.01.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.02.2023
First appeal filed on : 15.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 31.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.06.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"प्रार्थी द्वारा बैंक ऑफ बडौदा, मुख्य शाखा नैनीताल रोड़, हल्दद्वानी से प्रधानमंत्री आवास योजना शहरी के अन्तर्गत 15 लाख आवास ऋण वर्ग 2018 में ललया र्या। प्रार्थी को मात्र 25443.00 रू० सब्ससडी के रूप में 05-11-2020 को प्राप्त हुए। कृपया ननम्न सूचना उपलसध करवायें-Page 1 of 5
1. प्रार्थी को प्रधानमंत्री आवास योजना शहरी से प्राप्त होने वाली सब्ससडी / रालश के ललए बैंक द्वारा हुड़को के ऑनलाईन पोर्ग ल में ककये र्ये दावे संबंधी प्रपत्र/एक्सेल शीर् की छायाप्रनत / वववरण उपलसध करवायें।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 17.02.2023 stating as under:
"कोई offline कागज़ उपलब्ध नह ीं हैं ।
यह सूचित ककया जाता हैं कक ककश्त सींख्या 2,3,4 का डाटा पोटट ल पर अपलोड ककया गया था ककन्तु पहल ककश्त reject होने के कारण वह approve नह ीं हुई थी।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 31.03.2023, held as under:
"संशोधधत / मांर्ी र्यी सूचना इस प्रकार हैं।
उपलसध ररकार्डगस के अनुसार लोन 0967060003114 (MIG) के अंतर्गत 4 ककश्तों की जानकारी एक सार्थ अपलोड की र्यी र्थी। ककन्तु उस समय तक पहली ककश्त की सब्ससडी मंजूर ना होने के कारण System द्वारा reject कर दी र्ई र्थी और पहली ककश्त के अनुरोध के ललए रु 25443/- की सब्ससडी 5/12/2020 जारी कर दी र्यी र्थी.।
अब यह स्कीम बंद हो चुकक हैं।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri M R Sharma, CPIO/GM (Law), Dr. Deepak Bansal the then CPIO/GM (P), Ms. Radha Roy CAPIO, Shri Naresh Kumar GM (P), Shri Sachin Page 2 of 5 Gautam M (P), Shri E. P. Toppo AGM (A) and Shri Ramesh Bhagat, MGR (IT), appeared through video conference.
The respondent, while defending their case reiterated the replies given by the CPIO and FAA. They further submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 27.08.2024 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:
"HUDCO as a Central PSU working under the administrative control of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, is one of the 3 Central Nodal Agencies (CNA) nominated by Government of India for channeling the Interest Subsidy on housing loan under PMAY- Scheme of the Government of India. For such Housing Loan availed by a borrower like the Appellant from Bank of Baroda, HUDCO is designated, as CNA for channeling the interest subsidy. HUDCO's role as CNA is very limited and restricted to the channelizing the subsidy amount received from Government of India to the concerned Prime Lending Institution/ Bank (PLI Bank) which has granted Housing Loan. All the processing in this regard is system driven through CNA Portal run by the Government of India. As per the records, as far as Appellants case is concerned, in reply to his application under the RTI, he was informed by HUDCO vide CPIO HUDCO'S Letter dated 17.02.2023 read with reply of the concerned department dated 14.02.2023 as (Annexure-III) following:
"यह सूचित ककया जाता हैं कक ककश्त सींख्या 2,3,4 का डाटा पोटट ल पर अपलोड ककया गया था ककन्तु पहल ककश्त reject होने के कारण वह approve नह ीं हुई थी।"
and vide reply dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure - IV(B)) this was further clarified to the Appellant in reply to his First Appeal when he was informed as under:
"उपलब्ध ररकार्डटस के अनुसार लोन 0967060003114 (MIG) के अींतगटत 4 ककश्तों की जानकार एक साथ अपलोड की गयी थी। ककन्तु उस समय तक पहल ककश्त की सब्ब्सडी मींजूर ना होने के कारण System द्वारा Page 3 of 5 reject कर द गई थी और पहल ककश्त के अनुरोध के ललए रु 25443/- की सब्ब्सडी 5/12/2020 जार कर द गयी थी। अब यह स्कीम बींद हो िुकक हैं।"
Thus, it can be seen that as far as Appellant's request for information under the RTI is concerned, it was fully provided to him vide replies dated 17.02.2023 and 31.03.2023 of the CPIO.
4. It is observed that Appellants prayer in this Appeal is as follows:
"प्रधानमींत्री आवास योजना शहर की सब्ब्सडी एकमुश्त जार की जाती है , िूींकक केन्र सरकार द्वारा मािट 2022 से लमडडल क्लास (आयवगट 06 लाख से 12 लाख) की सब्ब्सडी समाप्त करने का फैसला ललया गया है । प्राथी द्वारा उक्त सब्ब्सडी का आवेदन वर्ट 2018 में ह कर ददया गया था परन्तु बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा मुख्य शाखा द्वारा ससमय ध्यान न ददये जाने से प्राथी का आचथटक नुकसान हो रहा है ।
अतः महोदय से ननवेदन है कक प्राथी को उचित न्याय ददलाते हुए सब्ब्सडी का पूणट भुगतान करवाने हेतु ददशा-ननदे लशत करने की कृपा करें ।"
From the above what appellant in this Second Appeal is seeking is the issuance of direction to the Central Government for release of his balance subsidy which does not appear to fall in the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, as was informed to the Appellant vide reply dated 31.03.2023, the Scheme was already closed by the Centre Government by then."
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, noted that the respondents have replied to the RTI application, and the first appeal vide their letters dated Page 4 of 5 17.02.2023 and 31.03.2023. Perusal of the records reveals that the complainant has grievance with regard to subsidy which should be raised before an appropriate forum. The Complainant remained absent despite notice, thus, he failed to controvert the averments made by the respondent.
It is noted that the instant matter is a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Hence, the only adjudication required to be made by the Commission is to determine if the information has been denied with a mala fide intention or unreasonable cause to the information seeker. Perusal of the records reveals that due reply has been given to the complainant and therefore instant complaint is not made against the non-response or incomplete/misleading reply given by the respondents. No mala fide was established on part of the CPIO in this case. Hence, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the instant complaint.
The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, HUDCO Ltd, Core 7-A, HUDCO Bhawan, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)