Central Information Commission
Vaibhav Shriram Pathe vs State Bank Of India on 20 January, 2022
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2019/141518
Mr. Vaibhav Shriram Pathe ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
State Bank of India
RBO, Jalgaon, 1st Floor, Dr. Kochhar's
Hospital, Akashwani Chowk, Jalgaon
Maharashtra-425001
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 16-02-2019 FA : 12-05-2019 SA : 27-08-2019
CPIO : 18-03-2019 FAO : 01-06-2019 Hearing : 14-01-2022
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) State Bank of India, Jalgaon, Maharashtra. The appellant seeking information is as under:-
I have submitted an PMAY Yojana scheme subsidy application to SBI, ANAND NAGAR. BHUSAWALfi6834) in December 2017. My home loan account number is 36743170663 with same branch. Till date I have neither received any subsidy nor any update regarding the same. When queried physically and through emails couples of time with my home branch manager, branch manager says we have submitted the file to next higher authorities and we don't have any update for that. when checked on PMAY website, it says No DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON YOUR NAME. When online complaint was raised through SBI website, it sends an sms saying CONTACT THE BRANCH and closes the complaint unactioned itself. You are requested to check the exact status of my file and inform the same to me at the earliest. Also inform r the issue for Page 1 of 4 which the file is getting so late for sanctioning from higher authorities. Regards.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 18-03-2019 has given reply to the appellant We have to advice that required information for Your claim regarding PMAY application has been forwarded by branch on 18-03-2019 to head office for further processing and claim lodging. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 12-05-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide order dated 01-06-2019 upheld CPIOs reply and dismissed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Mukesh Dalal, CPIO/AGM attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The CPIO submitted his written submissions dated 27.12.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant stated that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 16.02.2019. He further reiterated the factual matrix of the case and submitted that it is because of the callous conduct of the CPIO that he was unable to receive the subsidy under PMAY scheme. He requested the Commission to enquire into the matter.
6. The Commission counselled the appellant that the ambit of RTI Act, 2005 is restricted only to provision of information sought in the RTI Application. Further, redressal of grievances such as delay in providing the subsidy as stated by him during the course of hearing is outside its adjudicatory powers and same must be taken to the appropriate redressal forums.
7. The respondent submitted that relevant information was provided to the appellant on 18.03.2019 wherein he was duly informed that his relevant file for seeking subsidy under PMAY scheme was forwarded to the head office for further processing. He further stated that subsidy amount has already been credited to the appellants account.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant in his instant RTI Application has sought for status of his application which was submitted before the respondent authority to request subsidy under PMAY scheme. The CPIO vide letter dated 18.03.2019 informed the appellant that his relevant file was forwarded to their HQ. for further processing, however appellant is not satisfied with the same. Based on the submissions of the appellant, during the course of hearing, the Commission observes that the relief sought by him is akin for grievance redressal and same cannot be adjudicated under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, in the interest of justice and for better clarity of the appellant with regards to his averred application, Commission directs the CPIO to provide him the copy of complete file prepared in respect of his averred application enclosed with all the correspondence(s), noting(s) made in respect of the same, if any, subject to the payment of the requisite fees as prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012, via speed/registered post. Commission's directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 19-01-2022
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Page 3 of 4
Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO
State Bank of India
RBO, Jalgaon, 1st Floor,
Dr. Kochhar's Hospital,
Akashwani Chowk, Jalgaon
Maharashtra-425001
2. Mr. Vaibhav Shriram Pathe
Page 4 of 4