Central Information Commission
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0529-SM dated 16.03.2007
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 28.05.2009
Complainant : Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla
Respondent : PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent, is present.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Complainant had requested the Managing Director, PNB Housing Finance
Ltd (PNBHFL) on 16 March 2007 for a number of information in respect of the housing
loans disbursed by them from the commencement of the company till January 2004
and the number of customers who left the company before January 2004 without
completing their tenure. The Executive Vice President replied on 20 March 2007 and
informed him that the PNBHFL was not a Public Authority under the provisions of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act and, therefore, there was no obligation to provide
information. The Complainant has approached the CIC against the refusal of
information by the Public Authority.
3. During the hearing, neither side was present in spite of notice. We view it
seriously that the Respondent chose not to be present. The PNBHFL, in its written
comments dated 25 August 2008, has informed that the information sought was not
provided due to the pendency of a number of cases in various courts. It has also
informed that, in the meanwhile, the housing loan account of the Complainant had
been closed and there were no pending issues. This may be true but it does not resolve
the complaint. What the Complainant wanted was some information and it was not
given to him on the plea that the PNBHFL was not a Public Authority. That it is a
Public Authority, there is no doubt. Its letterhead shows that it is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Punjab National Bank which itself is a Public Authority within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, it was
incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to provide the necessary and
desired information within the stipulated period.
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0529-SM
4. We direct the CPIO of that organisation to provide to the Complainant within
10 working days from the receipt of this order the information sought and also to
explain to us in writing why penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI)
Act should not be imposed on him for denying the information in the first place and on
wrong grounds. If we do not receive his explanation in time, we will proceed to decide
on the penalty ex parte.
5. With the above directions, the complaint is disposed off.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Satyananda Mishra)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and
payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla)
Assistant Registrar
No.CIC/PB/C/2008/0529-SM