Central Information Commission
Avinash Bhimrao Lomte vs State Bank Of India on 18 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SBIND/A/2022/123657
Avinash Bhimrao Lomte ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
O/O The CPIO & ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
INDIA, SBI MAHARASHTRA CIRCLE,
RACPC 4, VIMAN NAGAR
SOCIETY, VIMAN NAGAR OFF NEW
AIRPORT ROAD, PUNE, MH-411014 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17/08/2023
Date of Decision : 17/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/02/2022
CPIO replied on : 15/03/2022
First appeal filed on : 16/03/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 05/04/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2022 seeking the following information:
1
"I got SBI SCHOLAR LOAN on Oct 2016 and my family income is less than 4 lacs so I am eligible for Central Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme, I did not receive any subsidy for 2020-21 year (on Nov 2021)-
1) Please clarify whether bank has applied for that scheme for the year 2020-21.
2) Also provide me the information in tabular for regarding -
i) Period/ FY
ii) interest applied.
iii) subsidy/ amount claimed
iv) date and amount of claim received in FY also format attached for your reference SBI Loan Account No: - 36180061118 Branch code:
0000009062 (Hadapsar)."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 15.03.2022 stating as under:
"1) As per the Central Govt. Scheme for Interest Subsidy for EWS, the subsidy is provided on the interest charged by the Bank during moratorium period, as the moratorium period in your educational loan A/c no 36180061118 was up to 15.10.2019 only, you are not eligible for Interest Subsidy for F.Y 2020-21 under the said scheme and Bank has not applied for it.
2) The subsidy claim was done by RACPC-1 Shankar Sheth Road Pune as the file was with them at material time, they have provided the information as under vide Letter No RACPC-I/MAINT/2021-22/21 dated 10.03.2022 --
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.03.2022. FAA's order, dated 05.04.2022, concurred with the reply of the CPIO.
2Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Anandkumar Babaji Patkar, AGM & CPIO present through video- conference.
The written submission (copy marked to the Appellant) filed by the CPIO prior to the hearing is taken on record.
The CPIO submitted that a point wise reply along with relevant available information has already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records and after hearing submissions of the CPIO finds no infirmity in the reply provided to the Appellant earlier and now as it adequately suffices the information sought as per the provisions of RTI Act.
Further, the relief claimed by the Appellant through the instant Appeal regarding a claim for supplementary subsidy on loan appears to be additional information sought which was in fact, not part of his original RTI Application.
Having observed as above and more particularly the absence of the Appellant during hearing to plead his case, no further intervention is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 3 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4