Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.06.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) I want Information and details with supporting file papers in reference of my Email dated 14/04/2023 to roahm@nhb.org.in regarding the benefit of PMAY subsidy availed by providing misleading information by beneficiary Mr. Rajubhai S. Patel with request to take legal action.

(ii) For the Period from Dt. 14/04/2023 to till date.

(iii) A copy of which kind of legal action in the case of the benefit of PMAY subsidy availed by providing misleading information by beneficiary is taken as per acts and rules of your Department may be provided.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-

(i) and (ii). Email was received on 14-04-2023. On perusal of the email, it was observed that it was a complaint was by a third party, without mandatory specification for lodging as complaint. Based upon the following provisions of the Grievance Redressal Policy of NHB, no complaint was lodged in the matter.

1. Provision 6.1 (Required Mandatory Specification):

Point 1 "Complaint must contain the name and address of the Complainant, his/her relationship as customer of HFC/PLI/NHB along with details like deposit/loan account number. branch, etc."

2. Provision 6.2 (Exclusion): Point 5 "Matter lodged as complaint by an Individual or an Advocate or a Third Party. who is not a customer or legal heir of the customer of NHB or HFC or PLI." and Point 7 "Complaint, which is incomplete/arbitrary/ambiguous or vexatious or filed without any sufficient cause or involving decision/policy by which the Complainant is not affected directly/indirectly."

(iii). Details of Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (PMAY-CLSS) (Guidelines, Amendments, Clarifications, List of Statutory Towns & Planning Areas) may be accessed by using below links: http://www.mohua.gov.in/cms/credit-linked-subsidy-scheme.php https://nhb.org.in/government-scheme/pradhan-mantri-awas-yojana-credit-linkedsubsidy-scheme/

As per the Scheme Guidelines, the PLI shall be responsible for ascertaining the eligibility of their home loan borrowers, through its due diligence, for availing subsidy under PMAY-CLSS and then uploading the eligible subsidy claims on the PMAY-CLSS portal maintained by the Central Nodal Agency (CNA), along with Application id. The CNA cannot ascertain the eligibility of the home loan account for subsidy under PMAY- CLSS unless the PLI confirms that the loan is prima facie eligible for subsidy. Further, PLI will follow the best practices of lending to implement the Scheme and follow the scheme guidelines and Regulations of Reserve Bank of India (RBI)/National Housing Bank (NHB). Further, through PLI login using its username and password on NHB's PMAY -CLSS Portal, it can see the details of records uploaded, processed, released, rejected, queried cases, etc. in the dashboard. Since the information sought requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions and giving advice or opinion, the NHB has no information to furnish.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 21.08.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 22.10.2023

5. The appellant remained present through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Adv. Niraj Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, ACPIO & Mr. Amay Kumar, DM, NHB, remained present in person.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that Rajubhai misrepresented his eligibility by declaring he did not own any property, although he inherited a house. This alleged omission allowed Rajubhai to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy credited to his Bank loan account. Based on which the Appellant had sought detailed records and actions taken by NHB to address this alleged misrepresentation. But no proper information has been provided by the Respondent.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the Appellant has not registered any such Complaint with the Respondent authority. He only intimated about the matter but failed to lodge any formal complaint as per the provisions of Grievance Redressal Policy of NHB. Based on this, a suitable reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act has been furnished to the Appellant.

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the Respondent. Therefore, no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: S R Patel v. National Housing Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/NHBNK/A/2023/649534; Date of Decision: 05.11.2024