Central Information Commission
Suresh Kumar Chouksey vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 27 June, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/HUDCO/A/2023/619689
Suresh Kumar Chouksey .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
HUDCO, CORE 7A, HUDCO BHAWAN,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024
Date of Decision : 26.06.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 01.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 17.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 29.03.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12.04.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. The reason for not releasing/ crediting subsidy amount in loan account so far.
2. Whether the subsidy claim is still pending with HUDCO and sustainable as on date?Page 1 of 6
3. Whether the data submitted, primarily, by the Bank was correct/mismatching.
4. If mismatching, state nature of discrepancy.
5. Whether subsidy claim was prima facie rejected by HUDCO, and intimated to the Bank.
a) If yes Reason, (please advise date and reference No.)
b) If No, Whether Bank was asked to submit corrected data and any enquiry made for rectification. (Please advise Date and reference of such enquiry/ intimation.)
6. Whether Bank replied to the queries raised by HUDCO in time and accepted by HUDCO.
7. After Submission of data, primarily, by the Bank to HUDCO, please advise date/ period during which the related portal was closed/ not functional, barring the Bank resubmission of the corrected data, if any.
8. Now, if Bank resubmits data afresh, (if need be) would it be entertained by HUDCO.
9. Now, what is the recourse available to the borrower, to get the benefit of subsidy amount at the earliest.
Please furnish certified copies of all the related papers / screen shots in respect of above subsidy claim and present status as desired. Please fill in the name of appropriate authority in IPO attached, to whom amount is payable & name of PO. at your end."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.03.2023 stating as under:
"The subsidy claim of the borrower, Sh. Suresh Kumar Chouksey (CLAP ID:
C0001637148) was received under MIG-I category of PMAY- CLSS Subsidy Scheme and was rejected due to "Borrower Aadhar No. does not Match".
It is clarified that PMAY(U)-CLSS for MIG was operational from 01- 01-2017 to 31-03- 2021.
As the Scheme is closed by Govt. of India, no further cases are being processed."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 29.03.2023, held as under:-
"The information sought by you is purely personal information about Shri Neelesh Chouksey, and without his consent to share the information related to his details, it is denied as per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the disclosure of personal Page 2 of 6 information can cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual. No larger public interest justifies the disclosure of this information, which is exempted U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Keeping the above into consideration, your appeal is hereby disposed-of."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Dr. Deepak Bansal, former CPIO and GM, Shri Rohinjath P., GM and CPIO, Shri E.P. Toppo, AGM and Shri Ramesh Bhagat, Manager (IT), attended the hearing in person.
The Appellant did not participate in the hearing and vide his written submission dated 17.06.2024, has prayed before the bench as under:
"In view of the above facts, it is prayed that the present appeal may please be disposed off by the Hon'ble Commission by a suitable order instructing HUDCO authorities to take the responsibility to get the correct data from the lending Bank and settle the subsidy claim at the earliest."
The Respondent submitted that the instant case is regarding Appellants' grievance pertaining to subsidy claim which was rejected due to mismatch in Aadhar Number and added that the averred scheme i.e. PMAY(U)-CLSS for MIG was operational from 01- 01-2017 to 31-03-2021, which has now been closed. He further submitted that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, an updated and pointwise reply has also been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2024, wherein he was informed as under:
"1. Claim was rejected automatically by system due to mismatch of Borrower Name & Aadhar Number
2. No Claim pending. Claim not sustainable as on date on accounting the closure of the scheme by Government of India.
3. As per the records, there was mismatch of data submitted into the portal.
4. Mismatch was between Borrower's Name & Aadhar Number.Page 3 of 6
5. No, HUDCO does not reject any Subsidy claim. Processing of claim is system driven, and claim was rejected by system due to mismatch of Name of the Claimant and Aadhar No.
a) No, HUDCO does not reject any subsidy claim. Processing of claim is system driven, and claim was rejected by system due to mismatch of Name of the Claimant and Aadhar No.
b) The portal has been developed in such a way that once the claim is sanctioned/rejected concerned bank can access the portal and get the details.
6. After rejection by system, due to mismatch of Claimant name and Aadhar no. the record does not showed resubmission of corrected data by the Bank. This is all system driven.
7. The portal was closed after July'21
8. The portal was closed after July'21
9. No, the portal is closed, as the Scheme is closed by the Government of India "
A written submission has been received from CPIO, HUDCO, vide letter dated 12.06.2024, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"With reference to the Notice of Hearing for Appeal/Complaint No. CIC/HUDCO/ A/2023/619689 dt. 04.06.2024, in respect of RTI Application dt. 12.02.2023 (mentioned in the Notice of Hearing for Appeal/Complaint as dated 20.02.2023) of Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey, the Appellant/Applicant, following is respectfully submitted:
1. In reply to the RTI Application dt. 12.02.2023 of the Appellant Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey (seeking information about PMAY subsidy for housing loan under CLAP No. C-0001637148), the then CPIO, HUDCO Dr. Deepak Bansal, sought the information (as applied for by the Appellant herein) from the concerned department of HUDCO.
Based on the information provided by the concerned department of HUDCO vide note dt. 27.02.2023 (Annexure-I), the then CPIO Dr. Deepak Bansal, informed vide reply dt. 01.03.2023 (Annexure-II), to the Appellant/Applicant that subsidy claim (under CLAP ID No. C-0001637148 which pertains to the Borrower Shri Neelesh Chouksey and Co- Borrower Smt. Suhani Neelesh Chouksey) was rejected due to 'mismatch' between the Name and Aadhar Number of the Borrower. Due to an innocuous oversight by the concerned department of HUDCO while communicating the above information, name of the Borrower was mentioned as 'Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey' instead of 'Shri Neelesh Chouksey'.
This error too, occurred on account of the fact that the Applicant Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey (Appellate herein) was seeking "personal information" about some other person 'Shri Neelesh Chouksey'. Except the innocuous error in referring the name of Applicant as 'Suresh Kumar Chouksey' instead of 'Shri Neelesh Chouksey', the information provided vide reply of 01.03.2023 (Annexure-II) was correct information.
Page 4 of 6The information was provided mistakenly assuming that the Borrower himself is the RTI Applicant, whereas in fact this was not the case.
2. Against the aforesaid reply dt. 01.03.2023 of the CPIO, Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey the Appellant/Applicant preferred First Appeal (FA) before Shri S.K. Tripathi, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), HUDCO wherein the FAA vide order dt.29.03.2023 (Annexure-III) held that the information is exempted from disclosure, inter-alia, u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground that the information sought is "Personal Information" of Shri Neelesh Chouskey, disclosure of which can cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and no larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information.
3.It is thus clear from the aforesaid proceedings of this case that at the first instance, the information was provided to the Appellant/Applicant Shri Suresh Kumar Chouskey by the then CPIO, based on the information provided by the concerned department of HUDCO that claim under Clap No. CLAP ID No. C-0001637148 was rejected due to mis-match of name and Aadhar number of the borrower mistakenly assumed that the information pertained to him only. It was later on, at the stage of first appeal, discovered that the information is related to "Personal Information" of some other person named "Shri Neelesh Chouskey" and did not relate to the Applicant "Shri Suresh Kr. Chouskey" and, therefore, is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the same was corrected in the First Appeal by the FAA vide his aforesaid order dt.29.03.2023.
In view of the aforesaid, as far as the then CPIO is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that the information as sought was provided to the RTI Applicant Shri Suresh Kumar Chouskey (Appellant therein), even if the Borrower's name was mistakenly written as 'Shri Suresh Kr. Chouskey' instead of 'Shri Neelesh Chouskey' in the reply dt. 27.02.2023 of the concerned department of HUDCO (Annexure-I). This innocuous mistake on the part of the concerned department is sincerely apologized and we assure the Hon'ble Commission that utmost care shall be taken and no such mistake shall be repeated in future.
4. Further, we would like to submit here that as per the existing procedure under the PMAY, at the time of generation of the Application ID, the borrower simultaneously receives SMS on his/her registered mobile number from M/s Housing and Urban Affairs, Govt. of India to enable one to track the status of his/her application. Had the Applicant/Appellant been the Borrower, he could have tracked the status of his application online from the aforesaid PMAY portal of the Govt. of India.
5. For ready reference and kind perusal of the Hon'ble Commission, the point wise reply to the queries of the Application dt. 12.02.2023 and the procedure as to how the PMAY Portal of Govt. of India works is enclosed as Annexure-IV.
Prayer:
In view of the above facts, it is prayed that the present appeal may please be disposed off by the Hon'ble Commission by a suitable order as the CPIO had substantially provided the information to the Appellant/Complainant even if the name of the Applicant was wrongly mentioned as 'Suresh Kumar Chouskey' instead of Page 5 of 6 'Neelesh Chouskey' based on the information provided by the concerned department of HUDCO."
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that upon receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, the Respondent has furnished an updated and point wise reply qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.06.2024 and the Commission upholds the same. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)