Central Information Commission
Vishal Ojha vs Drt, Ranchi on 15 February, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DRTRA/A/2023/604108
Vishal Ojha .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Debt Recovery Tribunal Ranchi,
Fifth Floor, Pragati Sadan,
Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi,
Jharkhand - 834001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07-02-2024
Date of Decision : 14-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01-11-2022
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 03-12-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"This INFORMATION is CONCERNED to my life as I have received death threats because of this and have lost 100 crores and still counting. Kindly provide information on each query below mentioned separately and on urgent and priority basis.1
1- If any banks failed to issue 13(2) notice under SARFAESI act and only issued 13(4), whom, and how to file a complaint against any such Bank.
2- Will DRT dealt with complaint against Bank fraud, cheating, non adherence in home loan sanction and disbursal.
3- Home loan on UNREGISTERED SOCIETY. Provide all the policy, directions on this. Are banks allowed to sanction and disburse home loan on UNREGISTERED SOCIETY.
4- Home loan on already mortgage property by Bank. Is this allowed. Kindly provide all the directions, policy on this.
5- Home loan on property with lien, charges, maintenance bill, water bill, electricity bill. Are banks allowed to sanction and disburse home loan on such property."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.12.2022. The FAA order is not on record. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri Ashish Kant, Assistant Registrar & CPIO present through Video-Conference.
The written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record.
The Respondent, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of their written submissions, which are reproduced herein below:
"This is regarding the matter listed before the CIC regarding the Second Appeal filed by Shri Vikas Ojha of Adityapur, Jamshedpur. The main contention of the RTI is that no replies have been given by the CPIO on the RTI Application and the First Appeal filed before by the Appellate Authority, through online RTI portal. Due to some technical issues, we were totally unaware of the fact that RTI application has been filed or it is pending before the First Appellate 2 Authority. Regarding the RTI application of Shri Vikas Ojha, it is submitted that:- Shri Vikas Ojha has asked about the information where DRT does not have any jurisdiction. In no way, DRT is not a Tribunal for monitoring the functioning of the Bank. For any complaint regarding functioning of the Bank, the person should approach its monitoring agencies. In DRT, the Banks and Financial Institutions file their cases for adjudication & recovery of loans over 20 Lakhs under RDDBFI Act 1993. Or Under SARFAESI Act 2002, the Bank on its own takes action. Any party aggrieved by any of the action of Bank can approach DRT for adjudication. But the jurisdiction of DRT lies only after issuance of 13(4) notice (Possession Notice) in the case. It is further stated that the application of Shri Vikas Ojha does not qualify to be a RTI application since Shri Vikas Ojha has sought information in the question answer form which is not as per provisions under Section 2 (1), (i) & (j) of the RTI Act 2005. However, Para wise reply to the queries raised by the applicant is as under (a) A person being aggrieved by any action taken by Bank/Financial Institution under SARFAESI Act 2002 can file a case before DRT. (b) No. DRT is not an appropriate forum for dealing with such complaints. (c) (d) & (e) It's beyond the purview of DRT. Hence, it can be seen that the queries of Shri Vikas Ojha does not come under the purview of DRT. It is submitted that non-furnishing of reply to the RTI filed online is totally unintentional"
Upon being queried from the Commission, the Respondent submitted that they are unable to track exact number of online RTI applications received on their RTI portal.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, observes that the main premise of the instant second appeal is non-receipt of information under the RTI Act. On the other hand, the Respondent submitted that due to technical issues, the original RTI application of the Appellant is not received on their online RTI portal.
The Commission further observes that the CPIO ab-initio has not received the RTI application of the Appellant on their portal and now, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, they have filed their written submissions informing the factual position in the matter.
The said written submissions of the Respondent is being treated as a reply to the instant RTI application. However, a copy of said written submissions are not provided to the Appellant yet.3
In view of this, the Respondent is directed to send to the Appellant a signed copy of their written submissions, through speed post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission further noted that the Appellant in his RTI application/second appeal alleged that he was getting death threats. In such circumstances and considering the provision of life and liberty, the Respondent is advised to immediately report to police officials in future cases.
The Commission further observes that there is a serious lacuna in the public authority in handling the RTI applications. Missing of online RTI applications from the portal of Public Authority raises a serious concern, which would obviously defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Public Authority is advised to re-examine the methodology by which the RTI applications are dealt with in this organization and evolve a robust mechanism for quick disposal of RTI matters in letter and spirit respecting the provisions of RTI Act.
Moreover, the Appellant did not avail of the opportunity to plead his case or contest CPIO's submission despite receipt of hearing notice. In view of this, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date 14-02-2024 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date 4