Mohd. Abdul Rahman vs State Bank Of India on 10 November, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mohd. Abdul Rahman vs State Bank Of India on 10 November, 2020

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.10.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 29.06.2018 and first appeal dated 04.08.2018:-

(i) As to whethe project of Red Apple Homez, RajNagar Extn., Ghaziabad to be developed by Manju J Homes India Ltd. was approved by SBI, RACPC, Janakpuri, if so provide the details.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) As to whether there was any agreement between Red Apple Homez, RajNagar Extn. Ghaziabad to be developed by Manju J Homes India Ltd. and SBI, RACPC, Janakpuri, if so details thereof.

(iii) Number of allotees who have been sanctioned home loan and their terms and conditions of the funds/refund of loan/interest to be released to/from the Developer.

(iv) Nos. of EMIs received from the Builder as interest component accrued upon on the allottees and details thereof.

(v) From which month, EMI has been stopped by the builder.

(vi) Action taken by the Bank against the builder for not payment of interest, if any. If so, details thereof.

(vii) Any complaint against the existing Chief Manager, SBI, RACPC, Janakpuri or any bank employee lodged by any citizen, if so, details thereof.

(viii) The authority of the bank has sanctioned and released amounting to Rs.

13,83,760/- to builder while the Bank should release only Rs. 13,29,300/- as per existing agreement. In this regard, it may be intimated as to whether any enquiry has been initiated against the erring officer, if not, the details about it.

(ix) The Chief Manager had threated the appellant for his personal Mobile No. *******188. It may be intimated as to Chief Manager had any right to do so to the consumer, if so, details thereof.

(x) The integrity of the officials of the Bank involved approving the Project seems to be doubtful as the Project has not been started till date and fund has been released without any inspection. In this regard, it may be mentioned as to which level of the officers of the Bank or Ministry, the Page 2 of 5 project has been approved and funds of home loan of all the individuals involved in the project has been released. Details of this issue.

(xi) Any physical inspection had been done by any Legal experts/ Engineer/ any experts before releasing the cheque of home loan to the Builder.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the appellant filed an application dated 29.06.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)State Bank of India, Delhi Circle, seeking aforesaid information. Dissatisfied with the non-response of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal dated 04.08.2018. Subsequently, the CPIO replied on 03.09.2018.The First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the first appeal vide its order dated 06.09.2018. Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed a Second Appeal dated 08.10.2018 before this Commission which is under consideration.

3. The appellant filed the instant appeal dated 08.10.2018 inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO and the FAA was not satisfactory. The appellant has requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take necessary action as per sub-section (1) of section 20 of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 03.09.2018 provided point-wise reply to the Appellant. The FAA vide his order dated 06.09.2018 stated that the CPIO had replied, however as the appellant had appealed against non-receipt of reply, the CPIO was advised to send a copy of reply once again to the appellant within 10 days. The CPIO was also instructed to follow the time frame prescribed under the RTI Act, while replying to RTI applications.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent, Shri Prem Kumar, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Delhi, attended the hearing in person.

5.1. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had taken home loan from the respondent bank against the flat constructed under the project of Red Apple Homez, Raj Nagar Extn., Ghaziabad.He alleged that loan was sanctioned to the builder without having physical inspection of the site and amount of loan sanctioned was also more than the amount stipulated in the agreement made between the bank and the builder. He Page 3 of 5 contended that nothing had been developed at the site and the respondent bank had released whole amount to the builder. He further submitted that complete information was not provided by the respondent even after lapse of more than two years from the date of filing of the RTI application.

5.2. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had furnished point-wise reply/information to the appellant vide letter dated 03.09.2018. They further submitted that the appellant had also sought some information regarding the loan sanctioned to the builder from whom the appellant had booked his flat. In this regard they stated that loan was sanctioned to the builder by following the rules and proper EMI was being paid by the builder from time to time. They contended that the allegations made by the appellant were baseless and were not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that due reply had been given by the respondent vide letter dated 03.09.2018. It may not be out of place that it is not a case of non supply of information but of non redressal of the appellant's grievance. As the appellant has some grievances which might be raised before an appropriate forum as the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum. There appears that no public interest would be served in further prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

(Suresh Chandra) (सरु े शचं ा) Information Commissioner (सच ू नाआयु त) दनांक/Date: 09.11.2020 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममत ू ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:

CPIO :

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA RACPC, JANAKPURI, A-1/24, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI - 110058 THE F.A.A, GENERAL MANAGER (NW-4), STATE BANK OF INDIA, 8TH FLOOR, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 11, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001 MOHD. ABDUL RAHMAN Page 5 of 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission