Central Information Commission
Anil Kumar vs Bank Of Baroda on 25 July, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/618649
Anil Kumar ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Bank of Baroda, ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Chandigarh
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 21.01.2023 FA : 20.02.2023 SA : Nil
CPIO : 17.02.2023 FAO : 14.03.2023 Hearing : 16.07.2024
Date of Decision: 24.07.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.01.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) "Status of CLSS case against above mentioned home loan account.
(ii) Time limit for resolving home loan complaint made to Banking Ombudsman.
(iii) Copy of my home loan application form and annexures along with notes/documents of Bank of Baroda created for processing the home loan case.
(iv) Copy of all CLSS related documents submitted by me under PMAY scheme along with notes/documents of Bank of Baroda created for processing the CLSS case.Page 1 of 5
(v) Intimate the last date of CLSS under PMAY scheme for my category.
(vi) Date of generation of CLAP ID of my home loan account under PMAY scheme by Bank of Baroda.
(vii) Intimate the date-wise events of processing the CLSS by Bank of Baroda.
(viii) Copy of documents/emails sent or submitted by Bank of Baroda to government authorities for processing the CLSS case under PMAY"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.02.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
i. "Please note, the CLAP ID for your PMAY application is C0002288747. It is informed that only the applicant can check the status of the application using the PMAY portal, as the same is linked to the mobile no. given under the application and the OTP shall be sent on the said mobile number only. The CPIO does not have access to the OTP.
ii. The information sought by you is covered under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. Since the information sought is already available in public domain, there is no obligation under the Act to furnish such information. iii. The information sought by you is annexed herewith. iv. The information sought by you is annexed herewith. v. The information sought by you is already available in public domain, thus there is no obligation under the Act to furnish such information. However, it is informed that the last date for the same was 31.03.2022, which you are advised to verify from PMAY Portal/scheme documents regarding the current status/extension. vi. The information sought by you is not available with this office. vii. The information sought by you is not available with this office. viii. The information sought by you is not available with this office."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 14.03.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
Page 2 of 54. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh, Deputy Regional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided the information within stipulated time limit.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the status of the application for claim subsidy was not available at the time of filing of the RTI application. Meanwhile, the appellant approached the Banking Ombudsman and as per the advisory of the Banking Ombudsman, they paid the subsidy amount of Rs. 2,35,068/- to the appellant. They relied upon their latest written submissions and the same is reproduced as under:
"In this regard, at the onset, it is most humbly submitted that, the actual dispute of the appellant was in respect of non-receipt of subsidy amount of Rs. 2,35,068/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand and Sixty-Eight Only), which has already been paid to the appellant by the Bank in the month of May 2023, thus the purpose of this appeal is already defeated.
Before, dealing with the merits of the issue, it is most humbly submitted that the then CPIO has provided all the information sought to the applicant, as was available on record. The applicant sought information on 8 points out of which 5 pointes were provided within the statutory timelines as were available on record. However, remaining three points, which are the bone of contention of this appeal were not provided to the applicant, simply because the information sought was not on record, and it is well established position that the CPIO cannot create information. The CPIO is duty bound to provide information available on record and thus in absence of the same the CPIO has rightly rejected the same with reasons thereof. As far as the facts of the matter are, it is submitted in brief that the applicant is a customer of the Bank and has availed housing loan facility from the Bank. The applicant has also made an application for interest subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Page 3 of 5 Awas Yojana (PMAY). However, due to non-receipt of the subsidy amount, the appellant approached Banking Ombudsman (BO) and lodged a complaint vide complaint no N202324007000151.
After following the due procedure, the Banking ombudsman issued its advisory stating that the bank is advised to pay eligible subsidy to the borrower and confirm in five working days. Pursuant thereto, the subsidy amount was paid to the appellant."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that partial reply was given by the CPIO on 17.02.2023. With respect to the delay in furnishing information with respect to processing of the CLSS application by the respondent bank, the CPIO explained that the update was not available in their office at the material time. However, the claim amount had been credited in the appellant's account and they had provided the details of the processing of the claim to the appellant. Therefore, no further action lies in the matter. It appears that the respondent had duly replied as per the data available with the office at the time of filing of the RTI application, hence, no lapse is found at the end of the CPIO. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 24.07.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Page 4 of 5
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Bank of Baroda,
Regional Head & CPIO, RTI Cell,
Regional Office: Chandigarh,
S.C.O. 62-63, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh-160017
2. Anil Kumar
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)