Central Information Commission
S Kannuchamy vs State Bank Of India on 17 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/2022/123330
S Kannuchamy ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Regional Manager, State Bank
Of India, RBO-3, Tricky Zone,
RTI Cell, BSNL Building, 22,
Netaji Street, Karaikudi,
Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu- 630001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16/08/2023
Date of Decision : 16/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/07/2021
CPIO replied on : 27/08/2021
First appeal filed on : 22/08/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 10/11/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05/05/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2021 seeking the following information:
"Based on the letter received from the Assistant Manager, Karaikudi. I need some information under RTI 2005 regarding my daughter K. Jayabalin Education loan as follows:1
1. As per the letter received from the Branch Manager, I met the branch manager and closed the education loan on 30 09 2015. After 6 years, a private institution informed me over telephone that education loan has not closed Kindly provide me the details.
2. We have received letter dated 15.09.2015 from Branch Manager State Bank of India, Karaikudi stating that the loan account was declared as NPA and the full details of both of you will be uploaded in GIBIL website and in future you will not be able to get any loan. Use this opportunity and close the loan account before 30.09.2015, Based on this letter, we closed the account on 30.09.2015 by making payment. After 6 years the ARC Institution is informing us that the loan account has not been closed. Kindly provide the details for the same If our full details have uploaded on the website kindly provide the details. If not also provide the details.
3. As per the letter received from the Regional Manager, Trichy they said that you have promised in Lok Adalat to close the loan by 18 11 2013 but within the time limit you have not closed. So, to take legal action we have sent the details to the bank lawyer. To avoid the legal action, contact the Branch Manager and close the loan immediately So, I have contacted the branch manager and closed the loan but without closing of the loan with seal and signature they said the loan was closed but the loan sold to private and need the details.
4. On 01 10 2015 the loan Manager informed me that the loan was closed and with seal and signature they confirmed the same in your bank my educational loan was not properly maintained and closed Kindly provide me the reason for the same.
5. Kindly provide me the details of my educational loan sold to AR C Institution And provide me the details of information sent to me after 30.09.2015 about the loan.
6. After closed the loan have given letter to the Branch Manager for No Due Certificate but without issue the certificate, they informed me that the account was closed. Kindly provide me with the reason for non-regularization of the loan account and not provide the correct details about the loan.
7. As per the letter received from Branch and Regional Manager. I have closed my education loan. But now informing me that the loan has not closed and provide me the reason for the same.2
8. I have remitted the amount for my education loan, but it was not credited to my education loan account and subsequently without my knowledge the amount was transferred to my gold loan account Provide me the details for the same.
9. I have remitted the amount for the education loan, from which date to which date the amount was lying in the educational loan account and when did the amount was transferred to my gold loan account. Kindly provide the details.
10. You have intimated me to close the education loan account before 30 09 2015 and I have paid the same but still my educational loan account was not closed and sold to Recovery institution. Provide me the reason for the same.
11. This is planned and executed. If our full details have been uploaded to the CIBIL Site, kindly provide the details, if not also provide the details.
12. The reason for not closing my educational loan is still not intimate to me. Moreover, the amount remitted by me would have been intimated to the private institution and could have regularized the account. Kindly provide the reason for not regularizing the account.
13. Almost for 6 years from 2015 to 2021, no intimation received regarding the pending dues in my education loan account but now the ARC Institution has called and informed me about the pending dues Provide me the reason for not providing the information from the branch.
14. As Information received from Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Karaikudi branch and the Trichy Regional office, met the branch manager and inform that am going to repay the loan and they have filled the challan to close the loan. But as they said in the letter did something for me. Kindly provide me with the same, the loan was sold to ARC and no information received for the same Kindly provide me the details.
15.The reference (1) is the RTI application sent by me. Reference (2) is the letter received from you for the reply not given me within the time limit. Reference 3) I sent my acceptance letter and asked for some details related to this. Ref (4) reminder letter was sent by me as the reply was not received. Reference (5) I have received your letter in which the new address of your new office was not given clearly. The State Bank of India (Head Bank) has not given proper and clear details to send the letter and the reason for the same.3
16. Kindly furnish the name and address of Appellate authority to fill an appeal if I am not satisfied by your reply."
The CPIO furnished a pointwise reply to the appellant on 27.08.2021 stating as under:
"Point 1. Your Educational Loan was not closed by you Since your loan was in NPA the same has been sold to Asset Restructuring Company (ARC). The follow- up for recovery of dues might be from ARC side. If there are any unpaid dues kindly contact them.
Point 2. As you said your loan account was not regularized and closed.
Points 3 ,4, 5 & 6. No dues Certificate was not issued from the bank Instead your account was transferred to ARC on 30 09 2015 as you have not paid the loan amount.
Point 7: Your loan account has not been paid fully and closed.
Point 8: The amount paid in SB account has been transferred to your gold loan account with your permission.
Point 9. You have paid the amount in your SB account on 28.09 2015 Rs 100.000/-
and on 15 10 2015 Rs 50,000/- Not in Educational loan account Moreover the amount from SB Account has been transferred to gold loan account on 31 12 2015.
Point 10, 12 & 14: Total amount was not credited in the account on or before 30.09.2015 Hence loan account was not closed so. it was sold to the ARC Institution.
Point 11: You can download from the CIBIL Website and get the details.
Point 13: The relevant information is not available to us.
Point 15: The present address of the Bank's Administrative office The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, RB0-111, Karaikudi BSNL Buildings,22, Netha ji Street, Opp to New Bus stand, Karaikudi - 630001.
Point 16: The Appellate Authority details are as follows:4
The General Manager (NW-2), SBI, No. 16, College Lane, Nugambakkam, Chennai - 600006."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.08.2021. FAA's order dated 10.11.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Dhana Lakshmi, Regional Manager & CPIO present through video- conference.
To a repeated query from the Commission regarding his dissatisfaction with the CPIO's reply, the Appellant stated in a vague manner that he is unhappy with the alleged inaction of the SBI in non-closure of his education loan despite repeated reminders and upon receiving complete payments/EMIs.
The CPIO narrated in length the factual background of the matter apprising the bench that the Appellant had defaulted in making full payments of his education loan EMIs, due to which the loan was declared NPA and sold to ARC for recovery in 2015. Upon amicable settlement to this issue through Lok Adalat, the SBI waived off the interest component and suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 82, 700/-. Despite this fact, the Appellant did not appreciate the bonafide conduct of bank and kept alleging deficiencies in services. It is further noteworthy that since his entire balance loan has been sold out to ARC for recovery in 2015 itself; thereafter, the bank has no records of the loan in question . Nonetheless, as far as relief of information is concerned, a point wise reply along with relevant inputs had already been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission observes from a perusal of records that the core issue raised in the instant matter is not as much as about seeking access to any specific information per se as it is about redressal of Appellant's grievance for non-closure of his education loan account despite payment of entire dues and seeking clarifications from the CPIO in this regard.5
From the standpoint of RTI Act, the response of the CPIO is in spirit of RTI Act, merits of which cannot be called into question.
For better understating of the mandate of RTI Act, the Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act. His attention is also drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) As far as jurisdiction of Commission is concerned, a reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied).6
The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) However, by taking an empathetic view in the matter, the CPIO is directed to facilitate a meeting with the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time to ensure due assistance in redressal of his grievance. The said direction should be complied with by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect should be sent to the Commission by the CPIO.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 7