Central Information Commission
Ranjit Raosaheb Misal vs State Bank Of India on 19 July, 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/2022/605054
Ranjit Raosaheb Misal .....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
SBI Mumbai Metro Circle,
Stressed Asset Recovery Branch,
RTI Cell, 1st Floor, Kerom, Plot No.
A-112, Circle Road no. 22, Wagle
Ind Estate, Thane-400604, M.H. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12/07/2023
Date of Decision : 12/07/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 29/11/2021
CPIO replied on : 07/12/2021
First appeal filed on : 16/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order : 22/12/2021
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 29.11.2021 seeking the following information:
1. "Please provide name and contact details PF in-charge officer of his case for NPA loan.
2. Please provide office address and head of the office handling the NPA case for loan amount.1
3. Please provide name, address, contact number, email address of person to whom customer escalate if doesn't get any proper response related to his NPA case.
4. Please provide name, address, contact number, email address of person heading Stressed asset group department in SBI (under whom all sarb branch comes).
5. Please provide current stage of my NPA case.
6. Please provide process to pay back dues of the loan in current stage.
7. Please provide information and any process to sell the property by me/customer to payback loan dues.
8. Please provide details of timeframe or deadline till he can sell his property to pay back dues.
9. Please provide process to sell the property by him/customer if property is sealed by bank.
10.Please provide name, address and contact of bank's advocate handling this NPA loan case.
11.Please provide name, contact and address of person responsible to provide regular update to him in his NPA loan case.
12.Please provide court name, court address, case number where bank is processing legal case related to loan account.
13.Please provide copy of all notice sent to him by bank."
The CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2021 stating as under:
1. "Chief Manager-Mr. Ramchandra N. Akulwar- 9049990822 & Case Officer & Dy. Manager-Mr. Rohit Kumar Burman 9834282797.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 1st Floor, Kerom Bldg., Plot no-A-112, Circle Road no-22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane W- 400604.
3. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch, 1st Floor, Kerom Bldg., Plot no-A-112, Circle Road no-22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane W- 400604.
4. Shri Subrata Biswas, DMD, 19th Floor, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021.
5. NPA Date-25.11.2019, IRAC-Doubtful-II
6. You have to pay the total dues of your loan account to close the account. For further information please visit SBI SARb Thane branch.
7. As the property is mortgaged with the bank, you can't sell the property by your own without the consent of Bank.
8. As the property is mortgaged with the bank, you can't sell the property by your own without the consent of Bank.2
9. As the property is mortgaged with the bank, you can't sell the property by your own without the consent of Bank.
10. Adv. Rachana Marwal (Empanelled Advocate), Cont-9594948247.
11. Chief Manager-Mr. Ramchandra N. Akulwar- 9049990822 & Case Officer & Dy. Manager-Mr. Rohit Kumar Burman 9834282797.
12. DRT-III, Mumbai. (Near Rly station Vashi).
13. Demand Notice under SARFAESI act 2002 section 13(2)."
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.12.2021. FAA's order dated 22.12.2021, upheld the reply of 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: Shri Sapan Kumar, AGM & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on point nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI application. He requested the Commission to direct the Respondent to furnish him complete and correct information.
The Respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 07.12.2021, complete point- wise reply/information, as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant on his RTI application wherein they have categorically informed the factual position in the matter to the Appellant on point nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI application. The Respondent further submitted that the FAA had also upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and upon perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the response given by the Respondent on point nos. 7, 8 and 9 of his RTI application. The Respondent apprised the Commission that the information sought by the Appellant 3 in his RTI application has been provided to the Appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. The CPIO can only provide information which is held by them in their records within the public authority.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and as a sequel to it further clarifications tendered by the CPIO during hearing as the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act.
It further appears that the Appellant is harbouring a grievance and is not seeking access to information as envisaged under the RTI Act. Despite this, the CPIO has provided a response to the Appellant; in the spirit of RTI Act.
The Appellant is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
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 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) 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: 0 "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", 4 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) The Appellant is therefore, advised to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Since, the Appellant has a grievance, he is advised to approach appropriate forum in order to redress his grievance.
Hence, no intervention of the Commission at this stage is required in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5