Central Information Commission
Sarvesh R Pai Kane vs Reserve Bank Of India on 26 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. (As Per Annexure)
Sarvesh R Pai Kane ... अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
1. State Bank of India
Panji
2. Reserve Bank of India,
Mumbai ...प्रतर्वतदीगण/Respondent(s)
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. Second Date of RTI Date of Date of Date of Date of
No. Appeal Application CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 133621 09.02.2023 06.03.2023 21.03.2023 28.04.2023 22.07.2023
2. 133620 27.01.2023 01.03.2023 18.03.2023 28.04.2023 20.07.2023
3. 133622 30.01.2023 28.02.2023 16.03.2023 28.04.2023 21.07.2023
4. 124614 12.12.2022 04.01.2023 31.01.2023 03.03.2023 25.05.2023
5. 124613 08.12.2022 02.01.2023 29.01.2023 03.03.2023 22.05.2023
6. 124612 05.12.2022 02.01.2023 27.01.2023 03.03.2023 20.05.2023
7. 120654 20.10.2022 22.11.2022 12.12.2022 12.01.2023 09.05.2023
8. 115629 07.10.2022 20.10.2022 14.11.2022 26.12.2022 05.04.2023
Page 1 of 27
9. 112316 26.08.2022 21.09.2022 19.10.2022 17.11.2022 15.03.2023
10. 109959 19.09.2022 10.10.2022 31.10.2022 22.11.2022 28.02.2023
11. 110179 13.09.2022 10.10.2022 28.10.2022 22.11.2022 01.03.2023
12. 110177 29.08.2022 26.09.2022 24.10.2022 22.11.2022 01.03.2023
13. 120702 13.09.2022 26.09.2022 08.11.2022 30.12.2022 09.05.2023
14. 120653 27.09.2022 25.10.2022 18.11.2022 30.12.2022 09.05.2023
Note: The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to the
same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 20.06.2024
Date of Decision: 25.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133621
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.02.2023 seeking complete information regarding SBI & RBI guidelines for base rate charged by SBI to their SBI Home Loan Customer in the year 2014, 2015 & 2016. His Home Loan Account No. is 3080*****91 Under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
1.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 06.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:
"The historical data of Base Rate has already been provided to you vide our reply letter no. SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/2021-22/001526 dated 22.09.2021 to your RTI application dated 21.08.2021.
The Base Rate is not different for Home Loan product."Page 2 of 27
1.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133620
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
Is the scheme/offer inaugurated by SBI as mentioned below, which was published in OUTLOOK MAGAZINE (photo-copy as attached), the same scheme under which my above home loan was sanctioned to me or not. Give advertisement copy/leaflet/brochure of the below referred scheme and also of the scheme under which my above home loan was sanctioned with full details as the below referred scheme tally's with my Loan Agreement, AGM(CPIO) Letter No. RBO/I/Comp/07263 dated 08-12-2011, etc. and the same was applied to my above loan account."
2.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 01.03.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The applicant has provided a copy of an advertisement published in a magazine and is seeking opinion/ explanation from the CPIO on the same which is not which is not allowed as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Also, the original advertisement is not available presently in the records of the Bank.
The Arrangement letter and approved note pertaining to the home loan A/c No 3080****991 of the applicant and relevant circulars of the scheme are already provided vide our reply letter No. SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ ADMIN/2021-22/001526 dated 22.09.2021, Page 3 of 27 revised reply No SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/2021- 22/001805 dated 29.11.2021 to RTI applications dated 21.08.2021 and 23.08.2021.
Any leaflet/brochure/advertisement of the scheme is not available in the present records."
2.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133622
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
As per the Circulars issued, applicable & applied to the Home Loan Scheme of my above account ie Circular No. PBBU/HL/AX/46 dated 31-01-2009, Circular No. PBBU/HL/PM/02 dated 27-04-2009 and further consolidating all the previous circulars/instructions issued upto 30-09-2010, Master Circular No. PBBU/HL/2010-11/2 dated 01-10-2010 was issued on the scheme, which clearly states that "Regular contracted interest rate will be applicable, i.e. Spreads below/above SBAR as applicable on the date of sanction in case of floating rate and applicable fixed rate on the date of sanction in case of Fixed interest rate loans. In the case of SBI Special Home Loan scheme interest rate and reset period will be the same as per the extant instructions, i.e. reset period 5 years from the date of sanction and interest rates of 8.5%/9.25% p.a. as applicable depending on the loan amount. This clearly proves that both, SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme and SBI Special Home Loan Scheme are different schemes and both cannot be applied at the same Page 4 of 27 time to one single loan account/above loan account. It should be noted that fixed interest rate on the date of sanction is applicable to Happy Home Loan Scheme-2009, which was given & applied to my above loan account and the same also tallys with the Loan Agreement, Arrangement Letter, RBO Letters and all other relevant documents, etc.; whereas reset period five years from the date of sanction is only applicable to SBI Special Home Loan Scheme and this scheme is not relevant to my loan account. However, on the other hand, CPIO Letter No. SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/2022-23/001496 dated 02-01-2023 states that "The Home Loan was sanctioned under SBI Special Home Loan scheme with Happy Home Loan Offer. The copy of the Arrangement letter and note towards sanction of the loan are enclosed as Annexture 1 and 2". It this is true, then Circular copy of this scheme stating "SBI Special Home Loan scheme with Happy Home Loan Offer to be given to me under my above RTI request besides the above-mentioned circulars which were already issued to me under my above RTI requests."
3.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 28.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The reply was given to RTI application dated 05.12.2022 vide our letter No SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ ADMIN/2022-23/001496 dated 02.01.23 as per the information available on the approved note of Home Loan A/c No 3080*****91 of the applicant. The copy of the approved note was also enclosed with our reply.
The Circular No PBBU/HL/AX/46 dated 31.01.2009 and PBBU/HL/PM/02 dated 27.04.2009 which are already provided to the applicant vide our reply letter No SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/2021- 22/001526 dated 22.09.2021 to RTI application dated 21.08.2021 state that the SBI Happy Home Loan offer is available for the loans sanctioned under SBI Special Home Loan Scheme also."
3.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2023. The FAA vide order dated 28.04.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 5 of 273.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.07.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124614
4. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
Give complete details of CIF NO. 0085548327828 with proofs and also full details as available in your bank's entire system on the same from starting till date as mentioned in "change over to base rate letter" addressed to me and as the same pertains to my above- mentioned Home Loan Account."
4.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The information sought by the applicant is not specific. Hence, we are unable to reply to the same.
The CIF (Customer Information File) No 85548***828 in the name of the applicant is used as a reference in the said letter."
4.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.05.2023.
Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124613
5. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 08.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Page 6 of 27"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
Give full details with proofs from starting till date on how many times and from when and till what date my above-mentioned existing home loan account was switched over from which scheme to which scheme."
5.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The reply is given to you vide our letter No SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/ 2022- 23/001496 dated 02.01.2023 in reply to your RTI application dated 05.12.2022 received at Navelim Branch on 09.12.2022.
The Scheme is determined at the time of sanction of the loan and not during the tenure of the loan. The rate of interest applicable to the loan is subject to change from time to time. The interest rate linked to your home loan has been changed as per the prevailing rates and RBI guidelines during the tenure of the loan.
Your home loan was switched over to the base rate system on 26.06.2014 i.e on the date of reset after 5 years as per the prevailing rate of interest.
The loan was switched to MCLR and EBLR in January 2017 and October 2020 respectively."
5.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
5.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.05.2023.
Page 7 of 27Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124612
6. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
Whether my above-mentioned home loan account was sanctioned under Happy Home Loan Scheme-2009 or not, or was it sanctioned under any other Scheme or sanctioned under more than one Schemes till date. Give the full list with details i.e. under which, when & under how many schemes from starting till date and also how many times & till what date my above home loan account is sanctioned to me from starting till date with all the valid proofs and evidence."
6.1 The CPIO replied vide letter dated 02.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The home loan was sanctioned under SBI Special Home Loan Scheme with Happy Home Loan offer. The copy of the Arrangement letter and note towards sanction of the loan are enclosed as Annexure 1 and 2.
The scheme is determined at the time of sanction of loan. The Rate of Interest is subject to change from time to time. Your home loan was switched over to the base rate system on 26.06.2014 i.e. on the date of reset after 5 years as per the prevailing rate of interest.
The loan was switched to MCLR and EBLR in January 2017 and October 2020 respectively. The interest rate history from the date of disbursement till date is enclosed as Annexure 3.
The loan was sanctioned in June 2009 for 240 months."Page 8 of 27
6.2 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.01.2023 The FAA vide order dated 03.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
6.3 Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.05.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/120654
7. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009.
1. Give full CCTV footage Video (with Audio) of my visits to Mini RACPC Margao located at SBI, Margao Main Branch, 1s Floor, Near Muncipal Garden, Margao, South Goa, on 12-10-2022 at around 3:30pm onwards with full interaction with Mr. Jayesh Satardekar while accepting my inward Request Letter dated 12-10-2022 for issuing me my Home Loan Sanction Letter Copy which was denied by RBO & Navelim Branch and was not issued to me till date:
and the same as committed by him that he will look into the matter and bring the file from his Head Office (RBO) and issue me the same within eight days (refer letter copy as attached).
2. Give full CCTV footage Video (with Audio) of my visits to Mini RACPG Margao (address as above) on 13-10-2022 at around 3:30pm onwards with full interaction with Mr. Jayesh Sdtardekar while denying to accept my inward Request Letter dated 13.10.2022 for issuing me full details of procedure to switchover to Base Rate System which came into effect from 01-07-2010 for the existing Home Loan Customers in general who availed Home Loans before Page 9 of 27 01.07.2010. Further, the same was sent through Registered Letter, which was received on 14-10-2022 (refer letter copy as attached)."
7.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 22.11.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Reply to Point No. (i) & (ii):
The information sought by the applicant is of commercial confidence to the Bank. Hence, it is exempt from disclosure under 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, the said information is also held by the Bank in fiduciary capacity. Hence, the disclosure is exempted under 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
Hence, we are unable to furnish the information sought.
The Bank's CCTV System records only the video and not the audio. Hence, no audio recording is available."
7.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
7.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/115629
8. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.10.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Give all the details with proofs of the "Product" mentioned in Home Loan Account Statements of all SBI customers in general, sanctioned during the period from 01st July 2010 to March 2016, which were under/linked to Base Rate Option & came into effect from 01-07-2010 in accordance with the mandatory guidelines issued by RBI on Base Rate as mentioned in the letter addressed to me (as attached). For example, when Home Loan Accounts were Page 10 of 27 opened under the Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009, "Product : SPL HAPPY JUN HL>5-20L" was mentioned on the loan account statement; whereas, when Home Loan Accounts were under/switched-over to MCLR, "Product: MC-SBI HOME LOAN JAN 17" was mentioned on the statement & when Home Loan Accounts were under/switched-over to EBLR, "Product : EB-HOME LOAN MAY 20" was/is mentioned on every statement issued to SBI Home Loan Customers till date."
8.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"The product codes are developed in CBS depending on various features of the loan scheme, loan amount and various circulars issued by the Bank from time to time. The information sought by the applicant is not compiled. The applicant is asking the CPIO to analyse certain information and deduce the reply to be provided, which is not permissible under the RTI Act. The RTI Act 2005 states that the CPIO has to provide only such information which is readily available under his control. In view of the above, we are unable to provide the information to the applicant."
8.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.11.2022 The FAA vide order dated 26.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
8.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.04.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/112316
9. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full information related to its Base Rate Option with Proof.Page 11 of 27
Has the Sanction Letter of my above-mentioned Home Loan Account been issued to me or not. Kindly provide me a copy of the Sanction Letter of my above-mentioned Home Loan Account."
9.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"No such acknowledgement is available record.
The sanction letter indicating the approval of the loan facility to the borrower is not available in the Housing Loan file of the borrower. Hence, we are unable to provide a copy of the same to the applicant.
The Arrangement Letter duly signed by the borrower and Guarantor accepting all the terms and conditions of the sanction is available in the file and is already provided to the applicant vide RTI Reply Letter No. SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN /202122/001526 dated 22.09.2021 in reply to RTI application dated 21.08.2021."
9.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.10.2022 The FAA vide order dated 17.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
9.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.03.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/109959
10. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full information related to its Base Rate Option with Proof.
Whether the State Bank of India have the right to/is authorised to switchover/link my above-mentioned existing Home Loan Account, which is under Happy Home Loan Page 12 of 27 Scheme-2009, to Base Rate Option without my consent and with/without collecting any switchover to Base Rate fees/charges. Give full details on the same with all the evidences."
10.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Yes, the interest rate is subject to revision from time to time and the customer is liable to pay the interest at such revised rate from its effective date.
The consent of the customer is available in the form of Arrangement Letter."
10.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 22.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
10.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.02.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/110179
11. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full information related to its Base Rate Option with Proof.
(i) Give full detailed information with copies of proofs of "the mandatory guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) with effect from 1st July 2010 till date on Base Rate & Benchmark Prime Lending Rate, with all the Bank determined chargeable effective rate of Interest for the loan facilities with linkage to the Base Rate & Benchmark Prime Lending Rate declared by the Bank from time to time" as mentioned in Sr.No.2 of SBI letter addressed to me (copy as attached to this RTI).
(ii) Also, give full detailed information with copies of proofs of the "further instructions of RBI for the existing Borrowers with having the option either to Page 13 of 27 continue with the current system of chargeable effective Rate of Interest (Linked to SBAR) till the facility falls due for Renewal/Reset/Review or switch over to Base Rate system even prior to the due date of renewal in case Borrowers are inclined to do so" as mentioned in Sr.No.3 of SBI letter addressed to me (copy as attached to this RTI).
(iii) Give all the details with all the Circulars of all the schemes, full schemes mentioned in the whole SBI Letter addressed to me as attached to this RTI application."
11.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "The said guidelines issued by RBI is available to the public on the website https://rbi.org.in.
Notifications > Master Circulars > Archives > 2010-11 > Master Circulars- Interest Rates on Advances.
ii. The letter was sent to you to comply with the instructions given by RBI vide the same Circular as mentioned in our reply to your point no, 1. iii. The RBI Circular is available on the website https://rbi.org.in as mentioned in our reply to Point No. 1."
11.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 22.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
11.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.03.2023 Second Appeal No.: CIC/SBIND/A/2023/110177
12. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.08.2022 seeking information on the following points:Page 14 of 27
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full information related to its Base Rate Option with Proof.
Give all the details with proofs of the Product mentioned in the Loan Account Statement when my above-mentioned Loan Account was under/linked to Base Rate Option i.e. the statement issued at the time when my loan account was under the Happy Home Loan Scheme "Product: SPL HAPPY JUN HL>5-20L" was mentioned. When my above account was under/switched-over to MCLR, "Product: MC-SBI HOME LOAN JAN 17"
was mentioned in my account statement and when my above account was under/switched- over to EBLR, "Product: EB-HOME LOAN MAY 20" was/is mentioned on the top right corner of every account statement issued to me till date. So, let me know what is the "Product" mentioned in the statements when my above Loan Account was under/linked with Base Rate Option as said in Sr. No. 10 of Letter No. SBI/RBO/II/PAN/ADMIN/2021- 22/001805 dated 29-11-2021."
12.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"There was no change in the product code when the loan was linked to Base Rate i.e. the product code of the loan was SPL HAPPY JUN HL>5-20L before 17.01.2017 as verified in our system."
12.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.10.2022. The FAA vide order dated 22.11.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
12.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 01.03.2023.
Second Appeal No.: CIC/RBIND/A/2023/120702
13. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
Page 15 of 27"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full Information related to its Base Rate Option with Proofs
1. Give full detailed information with copies of proofs of "the mandatory guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) with effect from 1st July 2010 till date on Base Rate & Benchmark Prime Lending Rate, with all the Bank determined chargeable effective rate of Interest for the loan facilities with linkage to the Base Rate & Benchmark Prime Lending Rate declared by the Bank from time to time" as mentioned in Sr.No.2 of SBI letter addressed to me (copy as attached to this RTT).
2. Also, give full detailed information with copies of proofs of the "further instructions of RBI for the existing Borrowers with having the option either to continue with the current system of chargeable effective Rate of Interest (Linked to SBAR) till the facility falls due for Renewal/Reset/Review or switch over to Base Rate system even prior to the due date of renewal in case Borrowers are inclined to do so" as mentioned in Sr.No.3 of SBI letter addressed to me (copy as attached to this RTI).
3. Give all the details with all the Circulars of all the schemes, full schemes mentioned in the whole SBI Letter addressed to me as attached to this RTI application."
13.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.09.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"It may be noted that credit related issues are mostly deregulated. Reserve Bank of India has advised banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, loan recovery policy etc. prepared and duly vetted by their Boards of Directors. Banks are required to take credit related decisions based on Board approved policies and broad regulatory guidelines as well as the statutory provisions. It may be noted further that credit related matters, including interest rates are mostly deregulated. The interest rate on advances sanctioned by Scheduled Commercial Banks are determined by banks with the approval of their respective Board of Directors subject to regulatory guidelines.
You may refer, Page 16 of 27
1) Master Circular on "Loans and Advances - Statutory and Other Restrictions"
dated July 1, 2015 available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
2) Para 2.5 on 'Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders' of the above Master Circular.
3) Master Direction - Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Advances) Directions, 2016, dated March 3, 2016, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
4) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 1, 2015, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
5) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 1, 2014, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
6) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 1, 2013, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
7) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 2, 2012, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
8) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 1, 2011, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
9) Master Circular - Interest Rates on Advances dated July 1, 2010, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'."
13.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
13.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2023.
Page 17 of 27Second Appeal No.: CIC/RBIND/A/2023/120653
14. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.09.2022 seeking information on the following points:
"REF: My Home Loan A/c No. 3080*****91 under SBI Happy Home Loan Scheme 2009 & Full Information related to its Base Rate Option with Proofs According to all the RBI Guidelines/Mandatory Guidelines issued by RBI from time to time with effect from 1st July 2010 on Base Rate & Benchmark Prime Lending Rate till date, does the State Bank of India have the right to/is authorized to switchover/link my above-mentioned existing Home Loan and with/without collecting any switchover to Base Rate fees/charges. Give full details on the same with all the evidences. & Also with detailed procedure to switch over to Base Rate option for the above existing loan account."
14.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 25.10.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"What is being sought is an opinion and not "information" as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. We have not issued any specific instructions in this regard. However, it may be noted that credit related issues are mostly deregulated. Reserve Bank of India has advised banks to have documents of investment policy, loan policy, loan recovery policy etc. prepared and duly vetted by their Boards of Directors. Banks are required to take credit related decisions based on Board approved policies and broad regulatory guidelines as well as the statutory provisions. Interest rates on advances sanctioned by Scheduled Commercial Banks are determined by banks as per their internal Board-approved policy subject to regulatory guidelines on interest rate on advances.
You may refer.
1) Master Circular on "Loans and Advances - Statutory and Other Restrictions"
dated July 1, 2015 available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
2) Para 2.5 on 'Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders' of the above Master Circular.
Page 18 of 273) Master Direction - Reserve Bank of India (Interest Rate on Advances) Directions, 2016 dated March 3, 2016, available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
4) Master Circular on Housing Finance dated April 1. 2022 available on www.rbi.org.in under 'Notifications'.
RTI Application has been transferred to State Bank of India (SBI) under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005."
14.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
14.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.05.2023.
Hearing Proceedings & Decision
15. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference on behalf of the Respondent, Ashish Kumar, RM & CPIO, SBI along with Siddhant, AGM & CPIO and Subhadra Ramamurthy, DGM, RBI attended the hearing through audio and video conference, respectively.
16. The Commission at the outset informed the parties that the instant matters have been clubbed for the hearing and decision as these were found to be premised on RTI Applications seeking answers to by and large speculative queries related to the same grievance emanating from the Appellant's home loan scheme.
17. The Appellant did not appear convinced with the observations of the Commission and sought to submit arguments on a case-to-case basis and while his case specific arguments were heard in the first few matters, eventually his arguments narrowed down to questioning the relevance of the 100 odd pages of circulars referred to by the CPIO in their replies. He further insisted that it was for the CPIO to spell out the relevance or the relevant extract of the said circulars. Further, he also alleged that the Bank has changed his home loan scheme without his consent, which is illegal.
Page 19 of 2718. The Respondent from RBI & SBI reiterated the replies provided to the Appellant and the CPIO, SBI further clarified that the base rate charged on home loan remains the same and does not differ for each customer, further that the SBI Happy Home Loan Offer is available under SBI Special Home Loan Scheme also. It was further submitted that the Appellant had approached the District & State level consumer forums against his grievance regarding the home loan, however, he lost the case and has now approached the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Appellant interjected to argue that the said submission of the CPIO is immaterial to the mandate of the RTI Act.
19. In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the Commission has also perused the written submissions filed by the parties in each of the instant cases. Now, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of each of these cases, the Commission observes that the very nature of the information sought for in the RTI Application as well as the issues raised by the Appellant under Second Appeal(s) and in his submissions before the hearing suggest that access to information is not the concern of the Appellant as he seeks to redress his grievances under the garb of exercising his right to information. The Appellant through these RTI Applications has largely sought for answers to interrogative queries, confirmation of speculative statements, clarifications; drawing of inferences and justifications, none of which is envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, even as the CPIO has provided clarifications and information wherever feasible, the Appellant has challenged the veracity of the same. For emphasis, the Commission is reproducing some of the contents of the Appellant's written arguments filed prior to the hearing in the instant cases while also stating that he seeks for relief in all these cases to aid his case at NCDRC:
"Hence, the CPIO be directed to mention the applicable home loan interest rates charged to SBI customers under Base Rate System separately only for the year 2014. 2015, & 2016 with proper evidences even though the same is available in the historical data of base rate, and clear the above simple RTI matter. Or else should rectify it misleads made by him till date on my Home Loan Account with linkage to Base Rate as even falsely proved in Court."Page 20 of 27
"The information requested vide my RTI request was only a copy of public scheme Circular stating "SBI SPECIAL HOME LOAN SCHEME WITH HAPPY HOME LOAN OFFER' as falsely stated by the CPIO in its earlier RTI reply Letter No. SBI/RBO/II/PAN lADl\tllNl2122-23l001496 dated 02-01-2023, as one single scheme. Whereas, both are two different schemes. As per all the Scheme Circulars in existence and issued vide CPIO replies till date clearly states and proves that, SBI Special Horne Loan Scheme & SBI Happy Home Loan Offer, both are two different schemes. Also all. the relevant documents, Circulars, Loan Agreement Etc. clearly states and proves that only Happy Home Loan Scheme-2009 was sanctioned to me. However, the copy of my home loan sanction is still not been issued to me till date even after CIC's showcause action on the then CPIO's. The CPIO had fraudulently combined both the schemes and misleads the requested RTI information all the time by stating that "SBl SPECIAL HOM LOAN SCHETVE WITH HAPPY HOME LOAN OFFER" is a one single scheme under which my home loan was sanctioned. Whereas, no such dual scheme Circular is in existence. If such dual Scheme exists then the CPIO be directed either to give copy of Circular stating "SBI SPECIAL HOME LOAN SCHEIME WITH HAPPY HOME LOAN OFFER' as requested under my above RTI request, or else should recorrect its false statements made by him till date in all its earlier RTI replies on such bogus dual Scheme, as both the schemes are different from one another."
"Whereas, earlier in CIC File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/110177 the CPIO had also falsely replied by stating that "There was no chanqe in the Product when the loan was linked to Base rate i.e. the Product of the loan was SPL HAPPY JUN HL>5-20L before 17-01-2017".
This clearly proves that my home loan account was never under Base Rate System as mislead by the CPIO till date, as the name of the Product mentioned in the statements cannot be the same for two different schemes. The CPIO had deliberately mislead us till date on my loan account with linkage to Base Rate even under RTI.
Initially, when my loan account was sanctioned under the Happy Home Loan Scheme "Product: SPL HAPPY JUN HL>5-20L" was mentioned in my account statement from 26-06- 2009 till t6-01-2017 and the same is not on Base Rate. When my Loan account was switched- over to MCLR, "Product: MG-SBI HOME LOAN JAN 17" was mentioned in my account statement from 17-01-2017 till 16-10-2020 and further when my above account was switched-
Page 21 of 27over to EBLR from 17-10-2020 onwards till date, "Product: EB-HOME LOAN MAY 20" is mentioned on the top right corner of every Annual Account Statement issued to me till date. This clearly proves that my Home Loan Account was never under Base Rate System as falsely claimed by the CPIO till date, as the Base Rate System came into effect from 01 st July 2010 till March 2016."
20. For better understanding of the mandate of the 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. For the sake of clarity, the provision of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is reproduced hereunder:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;.."
In this regard, the Appellant's attention is 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 Page 22 of 27 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) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...."
(Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary, (School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason Page 23 of 27 why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Similarly, as regards the Appellant's contentions challenging the merits of the information provided by the CPIO, attention is invited towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ....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 Page 24 of 27 concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied)
22. Having observed as above, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in these matters and upholds the replies of the Respondent(s).
23. Further, the archives of the Commission suggest that previously vide decisions issued in File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2022/151223 dated 28.08.2023 and File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/103879 dated 16.05.2024, the same grievance of the Appellant was heard, and he was advised inter alia to redress the same before the appropriate forum. Now, therefore, Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the Appellant appears to be filing repetitive RTI Application(s) on the same grievance subject in a trailing manner without even asking for information per se. The said approach of the Appellant largely points towards a misuse of the RTI Act as recognized by the superior Courts, for instance, in the matter of Rajni Maindiratta- Vs Directorate of Education (North West - B) [W.P.(C) No. 7911/2015] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'8. Though undoubtedly, the reason for seeking the information is not required to be disclosed but when it is found that the process of the law is being abused, the same become relevant. Neither the authorities created under the RTI Act nor the Courts are helpless if witness the provisions of law being abused and owe a duty to immediately put a stop thereto.' And, in the matter of Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar [W.P.(C) 845/2014] the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that:
'...xxx This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.' Page 25 of 27
24. In the above backdrop, the Appellant is advised to make judicious use of his right to information in the future and to desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed henceforth. The Respondent(s) are also at liberty to rely on the instant decision in the event that the Appellant files same or similar RTI Applications in the future.
25. The Appeal(s) are dismissed accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date 25.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा (ररटायर्ग ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, Zonal Office, State Bank Bhawan, M.G. Road, Post Box No. 12, Panaji, Goa - 403001
2. Sarvesh R Pai Kane Page 26 of 27 ANNEXURE Sl. No. Second Appeal Nos.
1. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133621
2. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133620
3. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/133622
4. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124614
5. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124613
6. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/124612
7. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/120654
8. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/115629
9. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/112316
10. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/109959
11. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/110179
12. CIC/SBIND/A/2023/110177
13. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/120702
14. CIC/RBIND/A/2023/120653 Page 27 of 27 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)