PIO: A survey conducted by the bank had revealed that the Appellant had sold his land and hence, his loan application was rejected - He raised this grievance before the Banking Ombudsman and his case was rejected - CIC: Appeal dismissed
Date of decision : 17th May 2016
This matter concerns an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on six points regarding action taken on and rejection of his loan application.
The CPIO reply
The CPIO provided a part of the information and denied the information on point nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5, stating that it did not come under the definition of information as per the RTI Act
Grounds of the First Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply.
Order of the First Appellate Authority No order passed.
Grounds of the Second Appeal Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply.
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing, Discussion and Decision.
The Appellant stated that he has not been given a satisfactory reply to his RTI application in which he had enquired about the action taken on his loan application. It was pointed out to him that the CPIO informed him vide his letter dated 2.5.2012 that a survey conducted by the bank had revealed that the Appellant had sold his land and his loan application was not accepted for this reason. The CPIO had further stated that the Appellant was kept informed of the above fact. The Appellant alleged that the claim of the bank that he had sold his land was false. The Respondents stated that the Appellant had taken the same matter to the Banking Ombudsman and his case was rejected. In response to our query, the Appellant confirmed that his case was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman.
2. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and note that the CPIO responded twice on 2.5.2012 and 19.5.2012. From the record placed before us, it is seen that the Appellant first approached the Commission on 23.7.2012. The Commission returned his appeal with the direction to send some additional documents. From the second appeal dated 28.1.2015 of the Appellant (registered in the Commission on 18.2.2015), it appears that the Appellant had filed an appeal to the FAA on 24.7.2014. The records placed before us contain yet another appeal dated 11.2.2015 filed by him to the FAA i.e. after the date of his appeal to the Commission (28.1.2015). From the above, it is clear that the Appellant did not adhere to the time limits laid down in Section 19 of the RTI Act in filing his appeals. The above notwithstanding, we have considered the substantive issue of the information sought by him. The CPIO informed him about the action taken on his loan application and the reason for its rejection. The Appellant claims that the bank was wrong in stating that he had sold his land. He raised this grievance before the Banking Ombudsman and his case was rejected.
3. In the light of the foregoing, we find no substance in this appeal and it is dismissed.
4. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma v. UCO Bank in File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/000592