Central Information Commission
Shri Ravinder Kumar vs Reserve Bank Of India (Rbi) & Union Bank ... on 25 May, 2009
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00385, 386, 387, 388, 390 & 401-SM dated 17.05.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 25.05.2009
Appellant/Complainant : Shri Ravinder Kumar
Respondent : Reserve Bank of India (RBI) & Union Bank of India (UBI)
The Appellant/Complainant is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri A. Krishna Gopal, Deputy Legal Adviser, RBI
(ii) Shri Thomas Mathew, DGM, RBI
(iii) Shri R.K. Gupta, Chief Manager (Law), UBI
(iv) Shri Vipin Chandra, Sr. Manager (Law), UBI
1. There are six appeals/complaints in all filed by the same
Appellant/Complainant, two of which are identical. Five of these appeals are against the orders of the CPIO/first Appellate Authority of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and one complaint is against the Union Bank of India. Since all these cases are interrelated and revolve around more or less the same matter, we have clubbed all the six cases together for hearing The brief facts of these cases are as under.
2. The Appellant/Complainant had, in five different applications dated 17 May, 23 August, 20 September, 2 October and 4 October 2007, requested the CPIO concerned in the RBI for a wide variety of information centred around his grievance against the Union Bank of India for charging higher rate of interest in a loan sanctioned to him presumably under a certain scheme of the Government in which the interest rate was to be subsidized. The CPIO wrote to him on 2 July and 15 October, 6 November, 30 November and 11 December and 12 December 2007 respectively and provided him with detailed information as held in the Public Authority. He also transferred some of the queries to the CPIOs in other public authorities to whom those queries pertained. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO, he had filed appeals before the first Appellate Authority which that Authority had decided in various orders dated 22 November 2007, 20 February and 21 February 2008 respectively. The first Appellate Authority, by and large, endorsed the information already supplied by the CPIO though in one case he had directed him to provide some more information and in some others No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00385, 386, 387, 388, 390 & 401-SM he had advised him to keep to the time schedule prescribed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in replying to the applicant. It is against these orders that the Appellant/Complainant has approached the Commission in second appeal/complaint.
3. Similarly, he had also requested the CPIO in the Union Bank of India on 24 May 2007 for a number of information in regard to the loan sanctioned by the Nakur branch of the Bank. He has complained against the CPIO for not providing him with any information within the stipulated period.
4. During the hearing, the Appellant/Complainant was present and made his submissions. The Respondents on behalf of both the RBI and the Union Bank of India were present and made their submissions. Besides, we have received detailed written comments from the Respondents including copies of the information supplied by the CPIO as well as the orders of the first Appellate Authority. We have carefully examined the contents of the applications the Appellant/Complainant had sent to the CPIO seeking various information and find that these were mainly grievances disguised as request for information. His main complaint seems to be against the Union Bank of India for not charging him subsidized rate of interest for the loan sanctioned to him under a particular scheme of the Government. Since he failed to get any relief from the Union Bank of India in the matter, it appears he had complained to the Banking Ombudsman, Kanpur. The Banking Ombudsman called for the facts and documents from the Union Bank of India and, based on those, concluded that there was no irregularity in the rate of interest charged by the Bank. Once the Banking Ombudsman gave a finding as above, the Appellant/Complainant started complaining against him and, in the process, began asking for a wide variety of information regarding the functioning of the Banking Ombudsman and alleging corrupt practices on the part of the Ombudsman himself and his office. The information sought include such details as the number of fans and computers in various offices of the Reserve Bank of India, the telephone numbers and postal addresses of a large number of political and nonpolitical reasons both in the central and some state governments and similar disparate items of information. We note that the CPIO had very patiently replied to all his requests and provided detailed information. Even when he approached the first Appellate Authority, it is noted that the Appellate Authority had also passed detailed orders explaining the reasons why he agreed with the contention of the CPIO. These cases illustrate how the No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00385, 386, 387, 388, 390 & 401-SM Right to Information (RTI) Act can be misused and valuable time and energy of the Public Authority wasted.
5. In the matter of the complaint against the Union Bank of India (390), the Respondent informed that the CPIO had indeed replied to the Complainant's application dated 24 May 2007 on 6 June 2007 along with which he had enclosed a reply sent by the Dehradun Regional Office of the Bank containing the desired information. The Complainant however submitted that the information provided was not correct and relevant.
6. From the submissions of the Appellant/Complainant, it is clear that his primary grievance is against the Union Bank of India for charging higher rate of interest than admissible. He had complained to the Banking Ombudsman and the Banking Ombudsman passed orders not to his liking. Against these orders, the Appellant/Complainant had appealed to the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) who too has since passed orders, again not to his liking. It is obvious that relief of any kind in this matter cannot be obtained through the right to information route and certainly not from the RBI. As far as these appeals/complaints are concerned, we find that the CPIO of the RBI had provided him with sufficient and detailed information as available with that Public Authority.
7. In the case of the Union Bank of India, however, after hearing the submissions of both the Appellant/Complainant and the respondent on behalf of the Union Bank of India, we are of the view that the information needs of the Complainant would be met if the CPIO of the Bank would provide him with a detailed report on the loan sanctioned to him and the interest charged on it from time to time. Such a report should also include details about any other charge which the Bank would have levied on him under any of its rules. We therefore, direct the CPIO in the Union Bank of India to provide to the Complainant within 15 working days from the receipt of this order a detailed report of the loan sanctioned to him by their Nakur branch, stating therein, the rate of interest charged from time to time and the basis for that, the rationale for the loan instalments claimed by the Bank, various other charges levied from time to time and the basis for that, the amount of interest subsidy claimed from the KVIB from time to time and credited to the account of the Complainant, and the latest status of No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00385, 386, 387, 388, 390 & 401-SM his loan account along with supporting documents.
8. The appeals/complaints are, thus, disposed off.
9. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Assistant Registrar No.CIC/PB/C/2008/00385, 386, 387, 388, 390 & 401-SM