Central Information Commission
Mahesh Shankar Darbari vs State Bank Of India on 25 August, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/SBIND/A/2022/660948
Mahesh Shankar Darbari ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
State Bank of India, RACPC,
F-40 South Extension Part I
New DELHI-110049. .... तवाद गण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/08/2023
Date of Decision : 24/08/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 04/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 18/07/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 17/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 12/11/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2022 stating the following information:
"Information sought wrt. Home Loan account no 30761740571 of Mahesh S Darbari and Shalini Darbari, maintained by RACPC ll, South Ex1, New Delhi.1
1. Copy of applicable Arrangement Letter dated 12-5-2009.
2. Was the EMI figure of Rs. 50611/- entered by the borrower(s) or by the bank in the Arrangement Letter in the Repayment clause at item no. 5.
3. Proof of service of borrower's copy/ one set in original Arrangement Letter, to the borrowers jointly.
4. Reason for not enforcing the Arrangement Letter in letter and spirit by the bank, particularly the higher EMI of Rs. 50,611, as and when due.
5. (a) Copy of the Agreement and copy of the Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement between the bank and the present borrowers.
(b) Were the Agreement and Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement ever referred to in the bank's written communications with the borrowers.
(c) Were the Agreement and Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement part of the casefile maintained by the RACPC.
6. Applicable rate of interest for the whole tenor of 25 years. Copy of applicable Amortization Schedule handed over to the borrowers while disbursing loan, indicating the EMIs for the entire tenor.
7. As per bank rules and RBI guidelines/ circulars, in a home loan account that is known to be irregular, can the bank disburse instalment amount.
8. In terms of the RBI guidelines/ circulars on NPA ever since date of disbursal of loan, when did the account first turn to NPA. Complete history of the account whenever it turned into NPA and when declared by the bank as NPA.
9. At the time of application, the borrowers had applied for loan with Maxgain facility. Reason for not allowing Maxgain facility in the said loan account.
10. In terms of SBI rules prevailing between years 2010 and 2017, necessary conditions to convert an existing home loan account to Maxgain.
11. After disbursal of final installment of the builder in December 2016, despite several written and verbal communications of the borrower to AGM, RACPC, loan 2 account not converted to Maxgain. Reason for non-conversion of the existing home loan account to Maxgain and copy of bank letters informing the same to the borrower(s).
12. File notings and action taken on all my representations addressed to AGM, RACPC, General Manager, NW1, LHO, Delhi and Chairman, SBI wrt. correct application of interest rate (Maxgain, MCLR, Current rate, RLLR) in the aforesaid home loan account.
13. (a) Reference numbers with dates on which proposals were sent by RACPC to LHO, Delhi for conversion of existing home loan to Maxgain/ MCLR/ Current interest rate.
(b) Copies of the same.
(c) Reason for said non-conversion.
14. INTEREST CALCULATION SHEET for the loan account based on MCLR for the period 01-4-2016 till date, showing month wise interest amount paid at the Applied Rate, proposed MCLR rate and the interest rate payable at the applicable MCLR rates.
15. INTEREST CALCULATION SHEET for the loan account based on RLLR for the period 01-10-2019 till date, showing month wise interest amount paid at the Applied Rate, proposed RLLR rate and the interest rate payable at the applicable RLLR rates.
16. RBI vide Memorandum dated 17th December 2015 had mandated conversion of existing home loan accounts to MCLR wef. 01-4-2016. Reason for non-conversion of the present loan account to MCLR and copy of the bank letter intimating the borrower(s) of the same.
17. Rates of interest from May 2010 till date, on which fresh home loans were sanctioned by SBI.
18. After declaring an account as NPA, what is the policy of SBI with respect to accrued interest in the home loan account in the recovery proceedings with reference to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.3
19. What is the SBI policy in case of continuous under payment of EMIs and the overdue amount (principal and/ or interest) remaining unpaid for more than 90 days and then 180 days.
20. Copy of the bank's first letter to the borrower(s) demanding higher EMI of Rs 50611 from the borrowers, for the first time.
21. In the series of audits conducted by the RACPC from year 2010 onwards, was any irregularity in the loan account detected/ reported. If so, copy of the same.
22. Copy of the bank's letter asking the borrowers for additional security towards the existing mortgage.
23. SBI rules and regulations pertaining to grant of moratorium in Home Loans."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 04.07.2022 stating as under:
"1. The same was already delivered to borrower9(s) at the time of executing the arrangement letter. Now, on the request of the borrower, we again provide the same.
2. No, it was not required because the same is applicable only after completion 12 months and this depends upon the changes of interest rate at the relevant time as well as the outstanding amount in loan account, which is calculated the rest of 288 EMIs.
3. Yes, the original arrangement letter has been served to borrower as per the receiving by the borrower by signing at Page no. 5 below the point no. 18 and signature and seal of the concerned AGM.
4. As the said home loan sanctioned by the concerned officer of the branch situated at SBI, RACPC, Parliament Street, New Delhi (Branch Code 04492) for the home branch named SBI, Friends colony, Delhi (Branch Code 01711) for the purpose of receiving EMIs. The loan documents were migrated to present branch i.e; SBI, RACPC, South Ex, Delhi (Branch Code 16683) and due to regular repayments and continue transfers, the required change in amount of EMI was not updated in CBS (Bank's software) due to that CBS automatically deducted the previous accepted EMI amount i.e; Rs. 40,9061-.4
5. (a) The same has been attached.
(b) Yes, as the same is accepted by the borrower (s) by executing in favour of the Bank.
(c) Yes, since the amount is migrated to our branch the same in maintained by our office.
6. No, the same depends upon the applicable rate of interest time to time, subject to change in ROI as per RBI guidelines.
7. No, Bank cannot dirbuse installment amount in a home loan account which is irregular, as per Bank guidelines.
8. NPA details attached.
9. Reasons for not allowing Maxgain facility is unknown to Bank but the borrower has accepted the type of home loan account as a home loan term by signing and exxecuting the home loan documents in favour of Bank.
10. For the conversion of home loan term loan into home loan maxgain the said loan , should be fully disbursed and standard / Regular at the time of conversion.
11. Since the home loan account was irregular , we were not able to convert the same into home loan maxgain. The same has been advised to borrower vide letter no. RACPCSE/17-181M dated 28.08.2017 (copy attached).
12. Information does not fall within definition of information u/s 2F of RTI Act.
13. (a) & (b) Information does not fall within definition of information u/s 2F of RTI Act.
(c) Because the said home loan term loan was irregular.
14. Since the said account is in SBI Happy HL May shcme, we are unable to provide the same.
15. Refer to reply of query no. 14.5
16. Refer to reply of query no. 11.
17. The desired information is in public domain and the same can be referred form Bank's Website.
18. After the declaration of NPA the Bank has issued NPA Notices as well as legal Notices but after failure to comply the same Bank has right to recover total due outstanding along with accrued interest and other charges as per Law by filing the appropriate case before the appropriate court of law.
19. The account turned NPA and Bank starts the recovery proceedings.
20. In normal practice Bank send text messages to NPA holders and also borrower was advised suitably when he visited Out office for subsequent disbursement.
21. Information does not fall within definition of information u/s 2F of RTI Act.
22. Bank has never issued such letter to the borrower (s).
23.
No. of floors Maximum permissible moratorium
Up to 7 floors 18 months
7 floors and 14 floors 24 months
14 floors and 21 floors 30 months
More than 21 floors 36 months
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2022 stating as under:
"Q2: Not disclosed as to who entered 50611 EMI amount. Q3: Proof of service to borrowers jointly, not given. Q4: Reason for not enforcing higher EMI of 50611 not given. Q5b: "COMMUNICATION' referred to not provided. Q6: Copy of Amortization Schedule not given. Q9: Copy of loan Application, in proof, not given. Q11: Proof of account being irregular at relevant time, with correct calculation sheet, not given. Q12, 013a&b, 021: All fall within definition u/s 2F of RTI Act, so pl provide information Q14, 015 & Q20: Information not provided Supporting document (only pdf upto 7 MB) Supporting document not provided"6
FAA's order, dated 17.08.2022 advised the CPIO to provide a suitable reply within 15 days of receipt of this order for query no. 2, 14, 15 and 20 and the upheld the reply of the CPIO on other points.
In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 29.08.2022 replied as under:
"2. Yes, the same is entered by Bank. as the amount of Rs. 50611/- (rounded of figure) has been arrived from "Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement For Home Loan Granted To Public" dated 12.05.2009 Page No. 215 Point No. (b) and the same was duly agreed and signed by both of the borrowers.
14. Information does not fall within definition of information u/s 2F of RTI Act.
15. Information does not fall within definition of information u/s 2F of RTI Act
20. We are unable to find any such letter sent to borrower(s) demanding higher EMI of Rs. 50611 from the borrowers."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the FAA's order ordering relief on only four points, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present in person.
Respondent: Neeraj Goel, AGM & CPIO along with Renuka Dhillon present in person.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired complete information till date while insisting on being provided with the Interest Calculation sheets and invited the attention of the Commission to an email sent by him on 29.08.2022 to the Bank wherein he had requested for the following in the concluding part of the email:
"You are requested for the last time to allow the benefits of Maxgain/ MCLR/ RLLR from the due dates on top priority, failing which the borrower would proceed with his long pending Police Complaint and legal options, besides thoroughly exposing and reporting the aforesaid unprofessional conduct of your esteemed bank to the Hon'ble DRT, the august forum which you have misused for fulfilling 7 your malafide intentions and from where you are now trying to wriggle out by withdrawing the OA in view of the wilful misrepresentations made to the Hon'ble Forum."
The CPIO submitted that the available information has been provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the Appellant is pursuing a grievance under the garb of seeking for information through the channel of RTI Act, and in the process, he has outstretched his RTI queries to largely include deduction, inferences to be drawn and answers to be provided by the CPIO, none of which is envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.[CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011]wherein it washeld as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Similarly, in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors.
[SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7....Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time 8 being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, in the matter of Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary,(School Education) vs. The Goa State Information Commission [2008 (110) Bom L R 1238], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under:
"..... In the first place, the Commission ought to have noticed that the Act confers on the citizen the right to information. Information has been defined by Section 2(f) as follows.
Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information." (Emphasis Supplied) Nonetheless, as a matter of limited relief considering the insistence of the Appellant and the plethora of loan related documents submitted by him alleging wrongdoing of the Bank, to allay his apprehensions, the Commission directs the CPIO to revisit the RTI Application specifically but limited to the grounds raised in the First Appeal with respect to few points of the RTI Application in the following words:
"Q2: Not disclosed as to who entered 50611 EMI amount. Q3: Proof of service to borrowers jointly, not given. Q4: Reason for not enforcing higher EMI of 50611 9 not given. Q5b: "COMMUNICATION' referred to not provided. Q6: Copy of Amortization Schedule not given. Q9: Copy of loan Application, in proof, not given. Q11: Proof of account being irregular at relevant time, with correct calculation sheet, not given. Q12, 013a&b, 021: All fall within definition u/s 2F of RTI Act, so pl provide information Q14, 015 & Q20: Information not provided Supporting document (only pdf upto 7 MB) Supporting document not provided"
The CPIO shall provide a revised point-wise categorical reply on the above referred question nos. mentioned by the Appellant in the First Appeal and information, if any available to be provided shall be provided free of cost by the CPIO. The said revised reply of the CPIO shall be provided to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 10