Central Information Commission
P. Adithya Kumar vs Union Bank Of India on 22 March, 2024
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/UBIND/A/2022/629868
P. Adithya Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Union Bank of India,
Srikakulam ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.01.2022 FA : 06.03.2022 SA : 30.05.2022
CPIO : 09.03.2022 FAO : 14.03.2022 Hearing : 18.03.2024
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2022 seeking information about his account xxxxxx0002 on the following points:
(i) "Date of opening of above-mentioned home loan account and it is under PMAY scheme.
(ii) Date of registration and application id of above - mentioned Home loan account under PMAY scheme Central Nodal agency portal for award of interest subsidy under CLSS (MIG- 1) as requested by the account holder (P. Adithya Kumar) by the undersigned vide his letters to Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Dasannapeta branch dated 06 Dec 2021(Reminder1) and 02 Nov 2021.Page 1 of 3
(iii) If no action has been taken till date, reasons may be elucidated to the effect.
(iv) Details of replies furnished to account holder (P Adithya Kumar) to his letters dated 06 Dec 2021 and 02 Nov 21, addressed to your bank branch. CTC copies may be provided.
(v) If no replies were furnished, reasons may be elucidated to the effect. etc./ other related information."
2. The CPIO did not reply within stipulated time limit. Dissatisfied with the same, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.03.2022 alleging that no reply was given in response to the RTI application. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 09.03.2022 and the same is reproduced as under :-
(i) "Housing loan account is opened on 24.03.2021 under PMAY scheme
(ii) Loan sanctioned under PMAY home loan - HL006.
(iii) NA
(iv) Branch orally confirmed to the applicant.
(v) Branch orally confirmed to the applicant."
3. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.05.2022.
5. The appellant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri P. Naresh, Regional Head and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had replied to the appellant vide letter dated 09.03.2022. The CPIO further explained that the delay of one month, in responding to the online RTI application, was on account of technical glitch in their online portal at the material time. However, they had contacted the appellant telephonically and he informed that he had received satisfactory reply.Page 2 of 3
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence of the Appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 21.03.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, RTI Cell, Union Bank of India, RM RO - Srikakulam, Venkatapuram Junction, New Bridge Road, Near Simhadwaram, Srikakulam - 532005
2. P. Adithya Kumar Page 3 of 3