Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Sunil Ramanlal Vora vs State Bank Of India on 25 June, 2025

                                     के ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं        ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2024/620154

Sunil Ramanlal Vora                                              ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                        VERSUS
                                         बनाम

CPIO: State Bank Of India,
Mumbai                                                     ... ितवादीगण/Respondents

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 09.03.2024               FA       : 03.04.2024             SA     : 13.05.2024

CPIO : 03.04.2024              FAO : 30.04.2024                  Hearing : 17.06.2025


Date of Decision: 24.06.2025

                                         CORAM:
                                   Hon'ble Commissioner
                                 _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                        ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 Loan Account No: ********8835

1. Reason for NPA status even though EMI stars from Jan 2024

2. Reason for not claiming CSIS

3. Reasons for reporting EMI default in CIBIL

4. Reason for initiating proceeding in National Lok Adalat

5. Reason for not responding to letter 18 Aug 2022 copy attached Page 1 of 4

6. Officials responsible for above reasons

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 03.04.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"Query no 1.: Repayment of loan had to commence from 17.10.2022 after completion of course. Customer has defaulted in regular payment of EMIs and account is Non Performing asset in books of the Bank.

Query no 2 : Borrowers are not eligible for CSIS scheme.

Query no 3 : Repayment of loan had to commence from 17.10.2022 after completion of course. Customer has defaulted in regular payment of EMIs and account is Non Performing asset in books of the Bank. Accordingly default was reported to CIBIL.

Query No 4 : Borrower had not submitted any progress report and mark sheets and fees receipt as required under arrangement letter in spite of repeated reminders. As account was sub standard Bank approached National Lok Adalat for amicable resolution of the matter.

Query No 5 : No information exists.

Query No 6. No information exists."

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.04.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 30.04.2024 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 13.05.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Jeetendra Samal, Regional Manager and AGM, attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent had not provided satisfactory and sufficient reasons for declaring his account NPA.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia in addition to their initial reply dated 03.04.2024, provided the following revised reply dated 21.05.2025 extracted below:

"1. The account slipped to NPA/sub-standard due to technical reasons on 24.06.2021 and the issue was rectified and amount was upgraded by the bank on 30.08.2022. The account is standard since 30.08.2022.

2. Subsidy under Central Sector Interest Subsidy Scheme (CSIS) was claimed and the subsidy of Rs. 80,257/- received in the loan account on 30.01.2025.

3. Reporting to CIBIL is system generated and automatically initiated in the event of any default/irregularity/NPA. The issue has already been taken up with CIBIL by the bank for rectification.

4. The borrower was intimated for National Lok Adalat through auto-generate letter in the period the account was NPA due to technical reasons. Further, subsequent to rectification of the technical issue no letter/proceedings under National Lok Adalat done after 30.08.2022.

5. & 6. No information exists."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. As a matter of fact, the queries raised in the RTI application were not squarely covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent have cited adequate reasons against the points raised in the RTI application and the revised reply given by the CPIO on 21.05.2025 is taken on record. 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) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 24.06.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1 The CPIO State Bank Of India, CPIO, Regional Business Office-Borivali, 1st Floor Mangesh Apartment, Above Gokul Restaurant, S. V. Road, Borivali-West, Mumbai-400054 2 Sunil Ramanlal Vora Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)