Central Information Commission
Appeal No.CIC/PB/A/2008/00792-SM dated 23.09.2008
Right to Information Act-2005-Under Section (19)
Dated 05.03.2009
Appellant : Shri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani
Respondent : Bank of Baroda
The Appellant along with Shri Dhanshyam Prasad Kesarwani, is present.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following are present:-
(i) Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
(ii) Shri R.K. Mathur. AGM
(iii) Shri J. Bhattacharya, Manager
The brief facts of the case are as under.
2. The Appellant had requested the CPIO in his letter dated the 11 January 2008 for
two items of information regarding sanction of loan. The CPIO, in his reply dated 1
February 2008, informed him that his letter dated 20 September 2007, as mentioned in his
application, had not been received in the respective branch. However, the CPIO
explained to him the modality of sanction of loan. Not satisfied with this reply, he
preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority as on 2 April 2008. The
Appellate Authority decided the appeal in his order dated 30 April 2008. It is against this
order of the first Appellate Authority that the Appellant has approached us in second
appeal.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant furnished detailed written comments on the
case and made oral submissions. The Respondent also made several submissions. After
carefully examining the appeal memo and the written submissions of the Appellant, we
find that the Respondent had indeed provided all the information necessary within the
stipulated period though we find that the CPIO had wrongly averred that the branch had
not received the Appellant’s letter dated 20 September 2007 as there are at least two
communications on record to show that the Bank had indeed received the same letter
from the Appellant. We would like to advise the CPIO to be careful in future while
replying to the Appellant in such matters.
4. The real issue in this case is the grievance of the Appellant against the Bank for
not sanctioning the loan the second time which, according to him, the branch had
promised while sanctioning a loan for the first time. The Appellant claims that he had
been orally advised by the Branch Manager of the respective branch that once he repaid
the loan sanctioned to him for the first time, he would be given another loan for his
business. The Appellant has been making efforts since then for the sanction of the
promised loan. On the other hand, the Respondent claims that the Bank was always
willing to sanction the loan as per their procedure and they had been requesting the
Appellant to come over to the branch and see the Branch Manager to complete the
procedural modality so that a decision on the loan could be taken. In the process, neither
the loan has been sanctioned as promised nor the Appellant has benefited in any other
way. The role and responsibility of this Commission is limited to facilitating supply of
information as per the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This
Commission has no role in getting a loan sanctioned to the Appellant from any Bank. In
this case, however, in view of the complications created because of the protracted
correspondence between the Bank and the Appellant, we would like to direct the CPIO to
forward to the Appellant within 10 working days from the receipt of this order a set of the
guidelines/scheme of the Bank for sanction of loan against mortgage of house property. It
will be open to the Appellant, thereafter, to take the next necessary step for getting the
loan sanctioned by the branch in accordance with the same guidelines/scheme.
5. Since, in this case, the desired information has already been provided by the
CPIO, we do not see how any further relief can be given to the Appellant. Hence, with
the above direction and observations, the appeal 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