Girish Tyagi vs Canara Bank on 12 May, 2023

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Girish Tyagi vs Canara Bank on 12 May, 2023

Bench: Suresh Chandra

                                   के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                            Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                             नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/CANBK/C/2021/629202
Girish Tyagi                                         ...िशकायतकता/Complainant

                                            VERSUS
                                                          बनाम
CPIO: Canara Bank
Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:

RTI : 30.05.2021              FA    : Nil                 Complaint : Nil

CPIO : 07.07.2021             FAO : No Order              Hearing    : 14.02.2023


                                       CORAM:
                                 Hon'ble Commissioner
                               SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
                                      ORDER

(11.05.2023)

1. The issue under consideration i.e. the reliefs sought by the complainant in the complaint dated Nil due to alleged non-supply of information vide RTI application dated 30.05.2021 are as under:-

 Impose maximum penalty on the concerned CPIO as per section 20 (1) and 20 (2) of the RTI Act.

2. Succinctly facts of the case are that the complainant filed an application dated 30.05.2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Canara Bank, Moradabad, seeking following information:

(i) Status of his application for PMAY subsidy. If his application is pending, provide the reason of pendency for such a long time.

Page 1 of 3

(ii) Provide the details of concerned official on each step where his application was pending and time of pendency on the part of each official from the beginning.

(iii) Is there any period or limitation of time to process the application (for each step involved) and credit the benefits of subsidy to the applicant's account, under PMAY-CLSS? If yes, provide the time limits specified in each step.

(iv) How much time is specified/allotted to complete the due/diligence by PLI after generation of application ID?

(v) How much time is specified/allotted to upload the claim on Central Nodal Agency Portal?

(vi) Is there any clause for compensation of excess interest paid by the applicant because of delay in processing of application? If yes, provide the rule/law/directives or any official document and procedure to claim that loss.

(vii) Expected/tentative date or time by which the complainant may get benefits of PMAY Subsidy.

The CPIO vide letter dated 07.07.2021 replied to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed first appeal dated Nil. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) did not pass any order. Aggrieved by the First Appellate Authority order, the complainant filed complaint dated Nil before the Commission which is under consideration.

3. The complainant has filed the instant complaint dated Nil inter alia on the grounds that reply given by the CPIO was not satisfactory. The complainant requested the Commission to take necessary action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.

4. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.07.2021 and informed the complainant to refer their official website to obtained the information.

5. The complainant as well as respondent remained absent despite notice.

Page 2 of 3

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observed that complainant sought information regarding status of his application for PMAY subsidy, reasons for long pendency of his application, limitation of time to process of application, time specified to upload the claim on nodal agency portal. The respondent informed the complainant that information sought was available on their web portal i.e. www.pmayuclap.gov.in. It may not be out of place to mention that once the information was available in public domain, the same could not be construed as the information was held within the control of the public authority. It is pertinent to mention that the parties were not present to present their cases despite hearing notices served to them. It was not the case that reply was not given to the complainant. There was no mala fide on part of the respondent while replying to the RTI application. That being so and the reply having been given to the complainant, there appears to be no merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is rejected.

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

Sd/-

(Suresh Chandra) (सुसुरेशचं ा) ा सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक/Date: 11.05.2023 Authenticated true copy R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीताराममूत ) Dy. Registrar (उपपंजीयक) 011-26181927(०११-२६१८१९२७) Addresses of the parties:

The CPIO Canara Bank RO, Civil Lines, In front of Police Line Mandir, Moradabad, UP - 244001 First Appellate Authority Canara Bank R&L, 2nd Floor Circle Office, Vipin Khand Gomti nagar, Lucknow, UP-226010 Shri Girish Tyagi Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission