Central Information Commission
Darshan Singh vs State Bank Of India on 16 July, 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/2024/631050
Darshan Singh ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
State Bank of India,
Patiala, Punjab ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.05.2024 FA : 08.06.2024 SA : 20.07.2024
CPIO : 05.06.2024 FAO : 12.06.2024 Hearing : 09.07.2025
Date of Decision: 16.07.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) "Sh. Daljit Singh resident of 411 street No. 04, Darshan Singh Nagar Patiala raised housing loan vide Account No. *******5738 from SBOP RACPC Patiala Sh. Dajlit Singh expired on 01.05.2022 and the applicant is one of the legal heirs of the deceased. Please provide the Present address of Sh. Rakesh Khanna who served as Chief Manager in 2011 at State Bank of Patiala, Sherwanwala Gate RACPC. Agreement copy enclosed.Page 1 of 7
2) A copy of SBI Life Policy was requested by me on 7th June 2022 by filing an RTI application in the bank, in which you have sent only policy copy of policy number *******0702 of Darshan Singh and Dalbir Singh, but you have not sent a copy of SBI Life policy number *******0310, please send a certified copy of this SBI Life policy. RTI copy enclosed.
3) Whether the SBI Life Rinn Raksha Policy *******0310 policy was opened by the bank or between SBI Life if so please send a certified copy of this policy.
4) SBI Rinn Raksha Account No *******9709 how much was the installment of ?
Do you have any related documents in which it is written that the installment of SBI Rinn Raksha Account is so much? Do you have a copy of any agreement related to this, if any, then send the certified copy."
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"1. The information sought is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(d), (g) of the RTI act.
2. We have taken up the matter with the concerned department. The response is awaited.
3. Same as (2) above.
4. A total loan of Rs.16,61,540/- was sanctioned i.e. Home loan of amount Rs. 16,00,000/- plus SBI Suraksha of Rs.61,540/- was sanctioned. (Copy of Letter of Arrangement enclosed)."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 08.06.2024. The FAA vide order dated 12.06.2024 advised the CPIO to relook the reply of point no. 2 & 3 and provide the revised reply within 15 days from the receipt of this order.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 20.07.2024.
Page 2 of 75. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, Lalit Negi, AGM & CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Commission took on record the written submissions of the Appellant dated 09.07.2025, sum and substance of which is contained in the following paragraph:
"In reply to the information sought at Point and 02 and 03 above it has been advised by the CPIO SBI Bank/SBI Life to share the loan account number, if any, and the policy number and the details cannot be found from the Master Policy Number as it is the similar for all. It is submitted that there is only one loan account No. 65124225738 and the same is in the knowledge of the SBI bank as well as the SBI Life. The Master Policy No. 70000000702 and Master Policy No. 70000000310 were issued on the same date in Loan Account No. 65124225738. There is only one loan account i.e. 65124225738. The deceased Late Sh. Daljit Singh raised Housing Loan as a Borrower and availed the SBI Rinn Raksha Policy to liquidate the loan in case the eventuality so arises. Late Sh. Daljit Singh expired on 01.05.2022 and the SBI Bank/SBI Life is liable to liquidate the outstanding loan. The SBI Bank/SBI Life is adamant to deny the information sought on one excuse or the other. The stand of SBI Bank /SBI Life to provide the Loan Account Number is without any substance as there is only one loan account of the deceased which is mentioned herein above and SBI Bank /SBI Life without making any efforts to provide the details wants to save its own skin to escape from their liability to liquidate the outstanding loan. The applicant/appellant humbly prays the Hon'ble Commission that SBI Bank/SBI Life be kindly directed to provide the information sought without any delay."
7. The Respondent affirmed that the available information has been provided to the Appellant as such and further relied on their written submissions dated 03.07.2025 stating as under:
"1. In this regard, it is submitted that the appellant vide RTI dated 07.05.2024 had sought certain information on four points. The information was provided to the appellant vide Letter no RACPC/114 dated 05.06.2024 by the CPIO (Copy attached, Annexure A) & Page 3 of 7 subsequent information on point no 02 & 03 by the CPIO vide Letter No 184 dated 01.07.2024 (Copy attached, Annexure B).
2. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant vide RTI NO. SBICH/R/E/24/00328 dated 08.07.2024 had again sought information on certain points and in the said application, Point No. 5 was on the same policy no 70000000310. The information was provided to the appellant by the CPIO vide Letter no RACPC/283 dated 01.08.2024 (Copy attached, Annexure C).
It is also pertinent to mention here that the information sought with respect to policy no 70000000310 had been provided to the appellant by sbilife vide Letter dated_31.08.2024_ in reference to IRDAI Token Number: 07-24-004456, Ref No: Sr No. 30579349 (Copy attached, Annexure D) The information sought has again been provided to the appellant vide Letter No RACPC 1427 dated 03.07.2025 by the CPIO. (Copy attached, Annexure E).
3. It is also brought before the notice of Hon'ble Commission that applicant has filed as many as 14 applications under RTI Act with respect to account no 65124225738 which is clearly misuse / abuse of provisions of RTI Act. The detail of RTI Applications filed by him are as under: -
1 RTI Dated 25.09.2020 2 RTI Dated 21.06.2022 3 SBI/CH/R/T/24/00238 dated 07.05.2024 4 SBI/CH/R/E/24/00241 dated 07.05.2024 5 SBICH/R/E/24/00245 dated 13.05.2024 6 SBICH/R/E/24/00247 dated 13.05.2024 7 SBICH/R/E/24/00328 dated 10.07.2024 8 SBICH/R/E/24/00344 dated 20.07.2024 Page 4 of 7 9 SBICH/R/E/24/00376 dated 02.08.2024 10 SBICH/R/E/24/00520 dated 30.09.2024 11 SBICH/R/E/24/00114 dated 07.11.2024 12 SBICH/R/E/24/00117 dated 30.11.2024 13 SBICH/R/E/24/00507 dated 23.09.204 14 SBICH/R/E/24/00518 dated 30.09.2024
4. It is submitted that information sought is related to the insurance Policy issued by SBI life Insurance Co. Ltd. which is a Private Company. State Bank of India and SBI life Insurance Company Ltd. are two distinct and separate legal entities. Nevertheless, Bank took up the matter with SBI Life and arranged for the information. Further, applicant was also advised that information sought relates to SBI Life and regarding insurance policy, he may contact SBI Life."
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that in light of the CPIO's submissions no action is pertinent in the matter, particularly when the Appellant is challenging the merits of the CPIO's reply and their action/inaction with respect to liquidating the alleged outstanding loan. In the facts of the instant matter, it will not be out of place to advise the Appellant about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished." Emphasis Supplied Page 5 of 7 The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
9. Having observed as above, no relief is warranted in the matter. The Appellant is advised to pursue her grievance before the appropriate forum.
10. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 16.07.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 7 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO State Bank of India, RACPC-PATIALA, Pragati Bhawan, Ground Floor, Urban Estate-III, Patiala, Punjab - 147003
2. Darshan Singh Page 7 of 7 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)