Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ravi Choudhary vs State Bank Of India on 16 December, 2025

                                       के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
                               Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/131689

 Ravi Choudhary                                                   ... अपीलकताग/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम
 CPIO:
 State Bank of India,                                          ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
 Dhanbad, Jharkhand

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 03.06.2024                 FA    : 15.07.2024              SA     : 25.09.2024

 CPIO : 03.07.2024                FAO : 16.08.2024                Hearing : 03.12.2025


Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
                                          CORAM:
                                    Hon'ble Commissioner
                                  _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                         ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) किस किसाब से मेरा Loan िा processing Fee Rs. 15045/- िाटा गया िै , क्या यि सिी िै , अगर निीीं िै तो क्या यि गलती से िो गया िै ? क्या आप इसिो मानते िै ?

2) आपिे statement में Show किया गया िै िी 3%= Rs. 7024/- किस चीज िा िाटा गया िै , जबकि मैं EMI Loan Repayment) amount Rs. 18822/- से बढािर Rs. 30000/-

only िर किया िै। किनाीं ि 23.05.2023 िो किर यि किस चीज िा deduction आपिे द्वारा किया गया िै , 18% GST किस Amount पर िाटा गया िै ।

3) अगर यि गलती या लापरवािी से हुआ िै तो आपिे द्वारा िोषी अकििारी तथा िममचारी िे खिलाि िायमवािी िी गई िै ?

4) क्या आप यि मानते िै िी customer िो आपिे कवभाग िे द्वारा सारा सूचना Disclose निीीं किया जाता िै ?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

1: ऋण अनुबींि (Loan Agreement) किनााँ ि 06/06/2022 िे कनयमावली िे अनुसार ऋण राकि िा 1.5% एवीं 18% GST processing Fee Rs. 15,045/- िाटा गया िै । 2: ऋण अनुबींि (Loan Agreement) किनाीं ि 06/06/2022 िे कनयमावली िे अनुसार समय से पूवम किये गये भुगतान (Pre Payment of Loan) Rs. 234136/- (29.04.2024) पर 3% िा पूवम भुगतान िु ल्क (Pre Payment Charge) Rs. 7024/- एवीं 18% GST Rs. 1264/ लगाया गया िै ।

3: बैंि ने कनयमावली िे अनुसार processing fee िाटा िै । 4: मााँ गी गई जानिारी, सूचना िा अकििार अकिकनयम 2005 िी िारा 2 (f) में पररभाकषत निीीं िै । अतः सूचना िा अकििार अकिकनयम 2005 िे तित यि जानिारी निीीं िी जा सिती िै ।

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.07.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.09.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Minakshi, Regional Manager, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that correct information of rate of interest w.r.t his loan and reason for imposing penalty for pre-closing of the loan had not been provided.

7. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 03.07.2024 and submitted that point-wise relevant available information had been furnished to the appellant. She further submitted that rate of interest and terms and condition had been informed to the appellant at the time of sanctioning the loan.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the appellant vide letter dated 03.07.2024. Further, during the hearing, the respondent clarified that rate of interest and terms and condition of the loan was part of the agreement signed with the appellant at the time of sanctioning of the loan. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 11.12.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोखररयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The Central Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Region-1, Rajsheela Kusum Apartment, Luby Circular Road, Distt-Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826001

2. Ravi Choudhary Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)