Central Information Commission
V. Rama Krishan vs State Bank Of India on 22 July, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली New Delhi - 110067
नई द ली,
ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second
Second Appeal No.
No.CIC/SBIND/A/2020/138909
Mr. V. Rama Krishan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
/Respondent
State Bank of India
Region-2,
2, R.H. Hospital Road
Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu-613001
613001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
appeal:-
RTI : 03-08-2020 FA : 21-09-2020 SA : 10-12-2020
1
CPIO : Not on Record FAO : 03-10-2020 Hearing: 18
8-07-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.
Nadu The appellant seeking information is as under:-
Page 1 of 42. No reply of CPIO is placed on record. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 21-09-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 03-10-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to himand requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through video-conferencing. The respondent, Shri Alwin Martin Joseph, CPIO/Regional Manager attended the hearing through video-conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 03.08.2020.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 15.09.2020, they have already provided a point-wise reply to the appellant as per their available records.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought action taken on his application dated 26.05.2020 and other queries related thereto. The appellant has contended that complete information has not been provided by the respondent which amounts to deemed refusal of information to the appellant. The respondent has contended that w.r.t the information sought at point no. 1 of RTI Application, it has been informed to the appellant that his letter dated 26.05.2020 has already been replied by their Kumbakonam Branch. He further contended that in respect of point no. 2 of RTI Application, the appellant has been informed that COVID package announced by RBI in respect of deferment of EMI for home loan borrowers is implemented in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, a categorical reply has already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 15.09.2020. The Commission observes that the appellant was holding a housing loan account no. 30119451866 with SBI, Kumbakonam Main Branch and voluntarily pre-closed the loan on 15.02.2020.
Page 2 of 4However, the appellant vide his application dated 26.05.2020 has raised his apprehension that the account was charged with excess interest and prayed for refunding the same. It has further been observed that the said application dated 26.05.2020 has already been replied by the O/o SBI, Kumbakonam, Main Branch vide their letter dated 23.07.2020. Hence, the information sought at point no. 1 of RTI Application has appropriately been replied by the concerned CPIO. As far as information sought at point no. 2 of RTI Application is concerned, the query sought on this point is more in the nature of seeking explanation about recovery of his home loan. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information can be provided which believes to be existing in material form, therefore seeking explanation/ clarifications etc. does not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, the respondent has provided a relevant reply on this point by going beyond the scope of the RTI Act, 2005.
7. In light of the above observations, the Commission is of the considered view that the reply provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 15.09.2020 is as per the provisions of the RTI Act and same is being upheld by the Commission.
8. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 18-07-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
Region-2, R.H. Hospital Road
Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu-613001
2. Mr. V. Rama Krishan
Page 4 of 4