Central Information Commission
Anil Joshi vs State Bank Of India on 22 October, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं ा / Complaint No. CIC/SBIND/C/2024/138144+
CIC/SBIND/C/2024/134286
Anil Joshi ...िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Pune, MH
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:
Complaint : 19.11.2024 &
RTI : 16.06.2023 FA : 17.08.2023
14.10.2024
CPIO : 19.07.2023 FAO : 18.09.2023 Hearing : 15.10.2025
The instant set of complaints have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter
Date of Decision: 22.10.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:
a) Loan Account No. *******6912 and No. *******1155 maintained at RACPC.
b) RTI Order dt. 04.11.2022 No. RACPC-5/2022-23/135 Page 1 of 6
c) Notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act No. RACPC-5/2022-23/F-22-23/12/693 11.12.2022 served on Applicant by Authorized Officer and Chief Manager dt.
(Maintenance).
d) Item (ii) in Letter RACPC-6/2022-23/200 dt. 9th February, 2023 under signature of Assistant General Manager (as also the CPIO) pursuant to SARFAESI Notice served.
e) Representation hearing against SARFAESI Notice. dt. 14th February, 2023 to RACPC by Applicant for personal
f) Email dt. 19.02.2023 with Representation dt. 18.02.2023 against SARFAESI Notice Item Nos in the RTI Order as per (b) above
g) (i) Item (a) Documents executed. (ii) item (c) Revision in terms of sanction of Home Loans after 31.08.2010. (iii) item (h) Approved definition of "Regeneration of EMI™ terminology in the Bank.
h) Email dt. 05.09.2022 from RACPC about threatened SARFAESI Action.
i) Letter No. RACPC-5/MAINT/2021-22 56 dt. 21st September, 2021 Details of the security documents executed.
Inspection of Documents / records - Applicant prays for inspection of documents / records associated with present RTI Applicant per sub section (4) and (5) of Section (7) of RTI Act. Applicant prays liberty to submit further list of documents as well thereafter.
Please provide relevant documents / instructions in support of the information provided.
a) Item Nos. (a), (b), (c) and (h) of RTI order dt. 04.11.2022 read with RBI IRAC Norms in force at the material time together with Bank's instructions under which Loan Account No. xxxxxx46912 of Applicant was identified as continuously irregular leading to its identification as NPA on 06.09.2022.
Page 2 of 6b) Item Nos. (a), (b), (c) and (h) of RTI order dt. 04.11.2022 read with RBI IRAC Norms in force at the material time together with Bank's instructions under which Loan Account No. xxxxxx11155 of Applicant was not classified as continuously irregular leading to its classification as NPA as on 06.09.2022.
c) Arbitrary and unilateral decisions of Chief Manager (Maintenance) dt.
30.01.2022 to Regenerate EMI on Loan Accounts of Applicant were contested, disputed and challenged continuously prior and after 06.09.2022 to RACPC and Bank's higher authorities.
Provide RBI / Bank's instructions where under Chief Manager (Maintenance) whose decisions in the areas of "Regeneration of EMIs on Home Loans" were under cloud and dispute was authorized to serve notice on Applicant as the designated "Authorized Officer" under the SARFAESI Act.
d) Approval on record from Bank's higher authorities for unprecedented acts of Chief Manager (Maintenance) as per 7 (c) above.
e) Irregularity / SARFAESI Notice(s) served on Mrs. Manjusha Joshi, Guarantor and co-obligant to Loan Account No xxxxxx11155 and No. xxxxxx46912.
etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 19.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
a) In response to your representation dated 22.12.2021, repayment schedule in your Housing Loan account were re-generated and revised EMI for your A/c No. *******6912 was advised to you through WhatsApp message, telephone call and vide our mail dt. 30.01.2022. However, you continued to pay your EMI @Rs. 12,000/ p.m. instead of revised EMI of Rs. 16,755/. Therefore, your account was irregular since January, 2022 and has been classified as NPA on 06.09.2022.
b) In response to your representation dated 22.12.2021, rеpayment schedule in your Housing Loan account were re-generated and revised EMI for you A/c Page 3 of 6 No. *******1155 was advised to you through Whatsapp message, telephone call and mail dt. 30.01.2022. However, you continued to pay your EMI @ Rs. 12.000/ instead of revised EMI of Rs. 12,955/. Though the Account was irregular, total irregularity was not more than 3 EMIs. Therefore, your account was not classified as NPA.
c-d) It is done as per Bank's approval.
e) Refer Notices sent through email of RACPC-5 Aundh on Registered Email ID of Shri Anil P. Joshi on:- 30.01.2022; 13.06.2022; 08.08.2022; 13.08.2022; 05.09.2022; 07.09.2022; 29.09.2022 ; 30.09.2022; 17.10.2022.
etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.08.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA passed a detailed speaking order dated 18.09.2023 and held as under:
I find that the CPIO has provided suitable responses in respect of all the queries. Further, the Appellant has advised to recover token cost of Rs.2000/- from the CPIO & the AGM as also CAPIO/Deemed CPIO & the Chief Manager (Maintenance) under the RTI Act is not within the purview of this authority.
Further, I find that the Appellant has a grievance. Please note that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not a platform for redressal of grievances. This Act can only be used to seek information which is held with the public authority.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with these Complaints dated 19.11.2024 & 14.10.2024.
5. The Complainant remained absent despite service of hearing notice in advance and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sanjay Kumar - DGM, SBI and Mr. Ajay Kumar - RACPC were present through video conference during hearing.
Page 4 of 66. The respondent while defending their case inter alia referred to the replies sent regularly answering the queries raised by the Applicant. The Respondent stated that the documents filed by the complainant with his complaints also indicate that information available on record with the respondent has been duly provided to him, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of records, observed that the cause of dissatisfaction of the complainant is not clear neither is the ground for filing of the complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act comprehensible. Information held by the respondent has been provided to the complainant as is evident from the records submitted by the complainant.
In adjudication of the complaints at hand, the only point to be considered is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent appropriate response to the Complainant in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...30. ...The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
Page 5 of 6In the given circumstances, it is noted that the information available on record stands duly furnished to the complainant and he has chosen not to buttress the case. The information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in these cases. Thus in the absence of the complainant to clearly state his case, the Commission finds no reason to entertain the complaints under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the complaints are disposed of as such.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 22.10.2025 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, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre-5, 102, N.S.G. I.T. Park, D. P. Road, Aundh, Pune, MH-411007
2. Anil Joshi Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)