File No. CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of first hearing Date of first order Date of second hearing Date of second order Date of third hearing Date of third order Date of fourth hearing Date of final order 11th December 2015 11th December 2015 5th February 2016 5th February 2016 31st March 2016 1st April 2016 19th April 2016 26th April 2016 Name of the Appellant : Shri Neeraj Kumar, A10/5, DLF Ankur Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP Name of the Public Authority/Respondent : Central Public Information Officer, National Housing Bank Core 5A, 4th Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 RTI Application filed on : 01/09/2014 CPIO replied on : 25/09/2014 First Appeal filed on : 08/10/2014 First Appellate Authority order on : 17/10/2014 2nd Appeal received on : 12/11/2014 CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Attendance during the hearing on 11.12.2015. The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri Lalit Kumar, GM and CPIO was present in person. Attendance during the hearing on 5.2.2016 The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM.
2. Ms. Neha Gaur, DM.
3. Shri Ram Jeewan Prasad, DM. Attendance during the hearing on 31.3.2016 The Appellant was present in person. On behalf of the Respondents, Shri K. Chakravarthy, General Manager and CPIO was present in person. The following were also present in person:
1. Shri Bhanwar Singh, Sub Inspector, Economic Offences Wing (Crime Branch), Delhi Police. CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
2. Shri Vijay Shankar Prasad, Cooperative Officer (Housing), on behalf of DM, Gautam Budha Nagar.
3. Shri Sanjay Singh, SP (Traffic and Protocol), Gautam Budha Nagar Police. Attendance during the hearing on 19.4.2016 The Appellant was present in person. The following were also present in person:
1. Shri K. Chakravarthy, General Manager and CPIO, Shri Lalit Kumar, GM and former CPIO, Shri V. Rajan, GM and former CPIO and Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM and APIO were present on behalf of the Respondents.
2. Shri Aju Ashok, Manager (Legal) on behalf of HDFC Ltd.
3. Shri K. Jagadish, Senior Executive on behalf of GICHFL.
4. Shri R. P. Gautam, Senior Manager (Law) on behalf of PNB HFL. Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal Though registered as a complaint under section 18 of the rti act, we are treating this matter as an appeal under Section 19 because in his communication dated 12.11.2014 to the Commission, the Appellant, without invoking any specific section of the RTI Act, prayed for provision of the information sought by him. He repeated the same prayer during the hearing. (He also described his communication dated 12.11.2014 as second appeal). Hearing on 11.12.2015 CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
2. This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking information on three points regarding the investigation conducted by the National Housing Bank in respect of the irregularities committed by Shiv Kala Charms Golf Course and Cooperative Housing Society and action taken on the findings of the enquiry, came up today. The CPIO had informed the Appellant that the Respondents had no information to furnish and his reply was upheld by the FAA.
3. The Respondents stated that they do not regulate the functioning of Cooperative societies, but of certain financial institutions and, therefore, did not have any information to provide to the Appellant. The Appellant submitted to us a copy of the letter No. NHB(ND)/DRS/Complaint Cell/7211 (?)/ 2012 dated 18.4.2012. He handed over a copy of this letter to the representative of the Respondents also. The letter was addressed by the Respondents to an unknown addressee (the details of the addressee do not figure on the copy of the letter handed over by the Appellant), asking the addressee to look into the complaint to the effect that HFCs and Banks had made multiple financing of the flats in the housing project, viz., Shiv Kala Charms, undertaken by the Golf Course Sehkari Awas Samiti Limited on plot No. 7, Greater Noida. The representative of the Respondents expressed his inability to make comments concerning the above letter without consulting CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 the records. The Appellant stated that flats in the above cooperative society project have been sold to multiple buyers. He added that he too had purchased a flat in the project.
4. We have considered the records and the submissions made by both the parties. Since it is clear from the letter dated 18.4.2012 that the Respondents did ask an unknown addressee to look into the complaints against the above mentioned cooperative society, they should have information in their records regarding the further action that was taken by the addressee in this matter. From the submissions made by the Appellant, this matter also appears, prima facie, to be a matter of larger public interest, where the promoters of a housing project have sold flats to multiple buyers and there are allegations of HFCs and banks having made multiple financing.
5. This matter is adjourned to be heard again on 5 th February, 2016 at 11.00 a.m. in room No. 305, 2nd floor, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066. The CPIO is directed to file his written submissions in the matter, with a copy to the Appellant. The written submissions should cover, inter alia, the comments of the Respondents in respect of the letter dated 18.4.2012 mentioned above. The written submissions of the CPIO should reach the Commission latest by 25.01.2016. The CPIO CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 should inform the third parties, if any, to be present for the next hearing on 05.02.2016 in case they wish to make any submissions in the matter. Hearing on 5.2.2016
6. The matter came up again today. The Respondents have filed their written submissions vide their letter dated 15.1.2016, from which it is seen that the matter concerning the irregularities committed in respect of the Shiv Kala Charms project developed by Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. was under consideration of the Respondents from January 2012 to at least December 2012. Therefore, it is not clear as to how the CPIO stated in his reply dated 25.9.2014 that the Respondents had no information to furnish in this regard. Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM was unable to offer any explanation in this regard. Shri V. Rajan, CPIO, who had responded to the RTI application on 25.9.2014, needs to explain the rationale of his reply. On being asked whether the Respondents were willing to provide the information, including letters exchanged with HFCs, in respect of consideration of the matter by them in 2012, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM stated that it could not be provided under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as the matter is subjudice and also under consideration of the Economic CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Offences Wing and the police authorities. However, in response to our query, he was unable to give the details of the court cases / investigation(s) in progress in the matter. The Respondents need to clarify the position in this regard. They also need to inform the Commission whether as per their record any tribunal or court of law has expressly forbidden disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. In response to a further query from us, the Respondents stated that the information concerning the consideration of the matter by them in 2012 runs into not more than fifty pages. However, the complaints filed by citizens, based on which the matter was considered in 2012, run into several pages. The Respondents also reiterated their written submission that in terms of paragraph 8 (exclusion provision) of the National Housing Banks Grievance Redressal Policy, complaints filed to them would not be construed or taken up for consideration and disposal, where quasijudicial proceedings are prescribed for deciding matters or cases that are subjudice. They further informed us that they perform both lending and regulatory functions.
7. The Appellant stated that he booked a flat in the project of the above Awas Samiti in 2010 and paid Rs. 22.5 lakhs in all, out of which Rs. 20 lakhs were borrowed from DHFL. However, subsequently he discovered that the flat sold to him was sold by the Awas Samiti to two more persons, who had also obtained loans from housing banksone CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 of them from DHFL. The Appellant submitted that there are others in a similar situation, with the flats allotted to them having been sold to up to seven persons. He stated that an enquiry has been going on by the concerned agencies since 2011. He and some others have filed writ petitions in the High Court of Delhi and the same are pending. DHFL have filed a recovery suit against him. The Appellant alleged that the above Awas Samiti committed irregularities in connivance with officials of various banks and the information sought by him would help him in bolstering his case before the High Court. He stated that two promoters of the company are in jail.
8. We have considered the submissions made before us. It appears to be a case where a number of persons have been duped by the Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Since the Housing Finance Companies would be having their procedures to verify that the allotment of flats financed by them has been made properly, the fact that the Awas Samiti could sell the flats to multiple buyers against financing by HFCs suggests connivance of their officials. Therefore, this appears, primafacie, to be a case of larger public interest warranting disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant, including copies of the correspondence exchanged by the Respondents with the HFCs concerned. However, we would like to give an opportunity to the third parties in this case to make their submissions, if any, before we pass a final order in this matter. Therefore, the matter is CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 adjourned to be heard again on 31 st March 2016 at 10.50 a.m. at Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. The CPIO of the Respondents is directed to forward a copy of this order, along with a copy of the RTI application dated 1.9.2014 of the Appellant, immediately on its receipt, by registered post, to the eight HFCs mentioned on page 2 of the Respondents letter No. NHB(ND).RTI/451/589/2016 dated 15.1.2016; as well as to the last knownaddress of the Golf Course Sahakri Awas Samiti Ltd., which developed the Shiv Kala Charms project. All the above entities should be informed that in case they wish to make any submissions regarding the request of the Appellant for information, which would include copies of the correspondence in the matter between the eight HFCs and the Respondents, they should be represented at the next hearing on 31.3.2016.
9. The CPIO of the Respondents is further directed to file his written submissions, providing the information / clarifications mentioned in our observations in paragraph 6 above. These written submissions should reach us on or before 21.3.2016. The CPIO of the Respondents is also directed to inform us in writing, based on the records of the Respondents, within seven days of the receipt of this order, about the police and other agencies, including EOW, that are conducting investigations into the matter, along with the reference numbers of the cases registered by them, if available. The Commission will CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 issue suitable notices to those agencies upon receipt of the above information from the CPIO.
10. The Appellant sought a copy of the Respondents written submissions filed vide their letter dated 15.1.2016. He was informed that since these contain information regarding consideration of the matter by the Respondents, a copy could not be provided to him till the Commission took a final decision on his request for information. Hearing on 31.3.2016
11. The matter came up on 31.3.2016. On the basis of the list of the police and other agencies, that had investigated the matter, provided by the Respondents vide their letter dated 24.2.2016, an intimation concerning the hearing was sent on 29.2.2016 to the following: (i) SSP, Gautam Budha Nagar, (ii) InspectorinCharge, P.S., Sector49, Noida,
(iii) The Inspector, O/o of the Joint Commissioner of Police, EOW, Crime Branch, New Delhi, (iv) Shri Hridesh Kumar, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, (v) Anti Land & Bldg. Racket Section, EOW, Crime Branch, New Delhi, (vi) The Additional Commissioner of Police, EOW, Delhi Police, New Delhi, (vii) The Deputy Commissioner EOW, Delhi Police New Delhi, (viii) The Joint Commissioner, EOW, Delhi Police New Delhi, (ix) The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, Delhi Police, New Delhi, (x) The Chief CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Development Officer, Gautam Budha Nagar. Out of the above, the agencies that were represented are mentioned in the attendance at the hearing at the beginning of this order. Representatives of the three agencies, who were present, stated that they have no objection to disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant.
12. In response to our query, Shri K. Chakravarthy, GM and CPIO was unable to inform us whether the CPIO had carried out our directive in paragraph 8 above to forward a copy of the interim order dated 5.2.2016 along with a copy of the RTI application dated 1.9.2014 of the Appellant, by registered post, to the eight HFCs mentioned on page 2 of the Respondents letter No. NHB(ND). RTI/451/589/2016 dated 15.1.2016; as well as to the last known address of the Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. He has subsequently informed us vide his letter No. NHB(ND). RTI/451/3210/2016 dated 31.3.2016 that the above directive was carried out only on 31.3.2016.
13. The Appellant stated that in his reply dated 25.9.2014, the then CPIO, Shri V. Rajan, stated that the Respondents had no information to furnish, even though Shri V. Rajan had himself signed the letter No. NHB(ND)/DRS/Complaint Cell/7211(?)/2012 dated 18.4.2012, referred to in paragraph 3 above. We note that it is on the basis of the reference of this letter that the Respondents filed their written submissions dated CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 15.1.2016, from which it was noted that the matter was under consideration of the Respondents from January 2012 to at least December 2012. The Appellant further submitted that he made a mention of the above letter in his appeal dated 8.10.2014 to the FAA also. However, the FAA too ignored this reference and endorsed the CPIOs response.
14. Since, as stated in paragraph 12above, the CPIO failed to act in accordance with our directives, contained in paragraph 8 above, until 31.3.2016, we are forced to adjourn the hearing of this matter yet again. The next hearing shall take place on 19 th April 2016 at 2.00 p.m. at. Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. The CPIO is directed to forward a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, by registered post, to the HFCs mentioned on page 2 of the Respondents Letter No. NHB (ND).RTI/451/589/2016 dated 15.1.2016; as well as to the last known address of the Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., informing them that in case they wish to make any submissions in the matter, they should be represented at the next hearing on 19 th April 2016 . CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
15. Shri V. Rajan, former CPIO is directed to be present at the next hearing on 19.4.2016 to show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of Section 20 of the RTI Act for his act of giving incorrect information in response to the RTI application dated 1.9.2014.
16. In response to our query, Shri K. Chakravarthy, CPIO stated that he took over the charge of CPIO on 3.3.2016. Shri Lalit Kumar, GM was the CPIO till 2.3.2016. He further submitted that Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM was the APIO when Commissions interim order dated 5.2.2016 was passed and continues to hold this position. Therefore, we note that the responsibility to carry out the directives of the Commission, contained in paragraph 8 above, was on S/Shri Lalit Kumar and Sanjeev Srivastava. However, they failed to do so, thereby causing delay in disposal of this matter regarding the Appellants request for information. In our view, their failure mentioned above amounted to obstructing the furnishing of information to the Appellant. Therefore, S/Shri Lalit Kumar and Sanjeev Srivastava are also directed to be present at the next hearing on 19.4.2016 to show cause why they should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 20 of the RTI Act for obstructing the furnishing of information. Shri K. Chakravarthy, CPIO is directed to serve a copy of this order, immediately on its receipt, upon S/ Shri V. Rajan, Lalit Kumar and Sanjeev Srivastava. CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Hearing on 19.4.2016
17. The fourth hearing on this matter was held on 19.4.2016. Shri K. Chakravarthy, GM and CPIO stated that the direction of the Commission, contained in paragraph 14, was complied with and a copy of the interim order dated 1.4.2016 was forwarded by registered post twice to the last known address of Shivkala Charms, Golf Course Co operative Housing Society Ltd. as well as to the following seven HFCs (since out of the eight HFCs mentioned in the Respondents letter dated 15.1.2016, First Blue HFL and Dewan HFL stand merged under the name DHFL): LIC HFL, HDFC, Dewan HFL, PNB HFL, GIC HFL, L&T HFL (Indo Pacific HFL has been renamed as L&T HFL) and Indiabulls HFL. All the above entities were informed that in case they wished to make any submissions in the matter, they should be represented at the hearing on 19.4.2016. The communications sent twice to Shivkala Charms, Golf Course Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. at their last known address were returned undelivered by the postal authorities.
18. The Commissions primafacie finding in paragraph 8, to the effect that it appeared to be a case of larger public interest warranting disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant, including copies of the correspondence exchanged by the Respondents with CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 the HFCs concerned, was brought to the notice of the representatives of the three HFCs that were represented at the hearing (HDFC Ltd., GIC HFL and PNB HFL). They submitted that the HFCs represented by them had no objection to furnishing of the above information to the Appellant.
19. With reference to paragraph 15 of the interim order dated 1.4.2016, Shri V. Rajan, GM and former CPIO has made his written submissions dated 15.4.2016 that have been taken on record. He reiterated these submissions during the hearing. Regarding paragraph 16 of the interim order dated 1.4.2016, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM and APIO has made his written submissions dated 18.4.2016 that have been taken on record and he reiterated the same during the hearing. Discussion and Decisions
20. The RTI application of the Appellant sought information in response to the following three queries (translated from the original application in Hindi):
(i) An investigation was conducted by the National Housing Bank in respect of the irregularities committed by Shivkala Charms, Golf Course Cooperative Housing CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Society Ltd., Plot No. 7, PIII, Greater Noida; provide copy of report of that investigation.
(ii) Copies of the letters, sent by the National Housing Bank on the basis of the above investigation report, concerning action with regard to the financial irregularities, to public / private banks / nonbanking finance companies.
(iii) Latest information concerning the action taken in the context of the letters sent by the National Housing Bank to the banks concerned. In the letter No. NHB(ND) / RTI /451/589/2016 dated 15.1.2016, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, APIO informed us that in November / December 2011, the Respondents had received complaints from certain individuals in their Complaint Redressal Cell regarding multiple allotment of flats to buyers by the promoters of the above project and multiple financing of the said flats by HFCs and banks. The Respondents took up the matter with the concerned HFCs in January 2012. During the same month, LIC HFL informed that EOW of the Crime Branch, Delhi, was investigating the matter and HDFC informed that they had already initiated remedial steps under the due process of law and keeping in mind the interest of the customers, the funding in the above project was stopped as soon as the fact of multiple sale came to light. On January 30, 2012, NHB advised all the registered HFCs to submit their exposure details etc. in the above project. This information was CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 received from eight HFCs. On 18.4.2012 NHB advised the HFCs concerned to submit the information / action taken on following points: (i) The attributable reasons for multiple financing in each case, (ii) Action taken by the HFCs against the concerned officials, (iii) Action taken to toneup the process in the organization to avoid recurrence of such frauds in future, (iv) Detailed report on the present stage of investigation of the case by outside agencies and (v) The efforts made to mitigate hardship faced by the borrowers / purchasers. On 17.9.2012, after receiving a reply from the concerned HFCs, a meeting with the senior officials of the five HFCs (having considerable exposure) was organized at NHB Head Office. At this meeting, the HFCs indicated the modus operandi of the multiple financing and stated that the report of EOW of Crime Branch of the Delhi Police was awaited. NHB was also informed that some of the HFCs had already filed complaints with the police as well as lodged cases in courts. The HFCs were advised to submit the current status of the action points, sent to them on 18.4.2012, coordinate with the builder and the society to resolve the issue and strengthen their internal system to avoid recurrence of such frauds. In November 2012, NHB discussed the matter with HDFC and LIC HFL and advised them to apprise NHB of the developments in the matter from time to time. On 5.12.2012, the bank issued letters to the Complainants that the matter was currently being looked into by various agencies including court and in terms of CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 paragraph 8 (during the hearing on 19.4.2016, the Respondents stated that it should actually read as paragraph 6) of Exclusion provision of NHBs Grievance Redressal Policy, the complaints in question would not be construed or taken up for consideration and disposal as Customer Complaint, where quasijudicial procedures were prescribed for deciding matters or cases that are subjudice.
21. From the above, it is clear that the matter concerning the irregularities committed in respect of the housing project in question was under consideration of the Respondents at least from January 2012 to December 2012. Besides exchange of communications with the HFCs concerned, the Respondents must have prepared internal notings, at various stages of consideration of the matter by them, containing their findings, leading to the communications sent to HFCs / directions given to them and concerning the meeting(s) to be held with them. In our view, such internal notings were in the nature of investigation reports prepared by the Respondents at various stages, on the basis of the information available to them, leading to the actions that they took from time to time. Such notings are, therefore, covered by point No. (i) of the RTI application. Further, it is also clear that the Respondents exchanged communications with HFCs on the basis of their findings at various stages of consideration of the matter and this information is covered by point No.
(ii) of the RTI application. Point No. (iii) related to the latest information concerning the CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 action taken in the context of the letters sent by the National Housing Bank to the banks concerned. This would cover the replies received from the HFCs and minutes of the meeting(s) held by the Respondents with the HFCs. All this information is available with the Respondents. During the hearing on 5.2.2016, the representative of the Respondents stated that the information sought by the Appellant could not be provided under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, as the matter was subjudice and was also under consideration of the Economic Offences Wing and the police authorities. However, no submission is on record to justify invocation of Section 8 (1) (h) and how disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation, prosecution / apprehension of offenders. In fact, as stated in paragraph 11 above, the representatives of the investigating agencies, who appeared before the Commission on 31.3.2016, stated that they had no objection to disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. It is a case where a number of persons have been duped by Shivkala Charms Golf Course Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Since HFCs would have their procedures to verify that the allotment of flats financed by them has been made properly, the fact that flats in the above project could be sold by the promoter to multiple buyers against financing by HFCs, suggests connivance of their officials. Therefore, this is a case of larger public interest warranting disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. In this connection we note that in its judgment dated CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 13.7.2012 in UPSC vs. R. K. Jain [W.P. (C) 1243/2011], the High Court of Delhi made the following observations:
28. I may also observe that public interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and has not a rigid meaning and is elastic and takes its colors from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs. [See Advanced Law Lexicon, Third Edition].Since a number of persons were duped by the promoters with the apparent connivance of officials of HFCs in this case, in our view, it falls squarely within the ambit of larger public interest. In any case, neither the Respondents nor any of the other parties have made a case for exemption from disclosure of the information under any Section of the RTI Act. With regard to the submission of the Respondents that the matter is subjudice, we note that there is nothing on record to suggest that any court of law or tribunal has expressly forbidden disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
22. In view of the foregoing, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the following information from the time of receipt of the first complaint in the matter by the Respondents till the date of the RTI application (1.9.2014):
(i) Copies of all the file notings prepared by the Respondents in respect of action on the complaints, communications exchanged with / directions given to HFCs and meetings with HFCs.
(ii) Copies of all the correspondence exchanged by the Respondents with HFCs in the course of looking into the complaints made to them.
(iii) Minutes of meetings with HFCs. While providing the above information, the CPIO should exclude / blot out the names / addresses of the third party complainants, whose complaints led to action by the Respondents. The CPIO should provide the information as above to the Appellant, free of charge, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
23. We now come to the show cause notice issued to Shri V. Rajan, GM and former CPIO (reference paragraph 15 above). Shri Rajan has stated the following in his written submissions dated 15.4.2016: CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
i. The National Housing Bank did not undertake any Investigation or Inspection as per provisions of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 regarding Shiv Kala Charms, and had no investigation or inspection report on record.He has submitted that in view of the above, he sent a reply stating: We have no information to furnish in this regard. He has further submitted that the above reply was sent by him without any malafide intent or suppression of facts, since the specific information sought was not available on the records of the Respondents. According to him, from the order of the CIC, he realises that the reply to the Appellant could have been sent in a detailed form to avoid ambiguity in interpretation and has conveyed his regret for the same.ii. did not send letter to public / private banks / Nonbanking Financial Companies on Shiv Kala Charms investigation or inspection report, as they were not regulated by National Housing Bank and no such report was on record; and
iii. did not receive any updated information on the action taken by the respective banks,
24. We are not in agreement with the above arguments of Shri V. Rajan, former CPIO. The information sought by the Appellant in point No. 1 of his RTI application in Hindi was CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 regarding the Jaanch conducted by the Respondents. This, in English, could be taken to mean an enquiry or investigation. The Oxford dictionary describes an enquiry as an act of asking for information. The same dictionary describes investigation as the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research. Shri Rajan has claimed that no investigation was conducted as per the provisions of the NHB Act, 1987. However, in response to our query, he stated that the said Act does not give any definition of investigation, but speaks only of inspection. This being the case, we have to go by the dictionary meaning of enquiry / investigation. In this context, it is further noted that section 24 of the above act empowers NHB at any time, on being directed to do so by the RBI, to make an inspection of any institution to which the NHB has made any loan or advance or granted any other financial assistance. This section is not relevant to the case before us. What is clear is that the action taken by NHB, following receipt of complaints in the matter, amounted to investigation / enquiry within the meaning of those words. Further, in the course of looking into the matter, the Respondents must have prepared internal notings regarding the communications to be addressed to the HFCs / directions to be given to them and meetings with them; as well as minutes of the meetings with HFCs. All these documents were part of the investigation conducted by NHB. As stated in paragraph 21 above, in our view, such notings amounted CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 to the reports of investigation prepared by the Respondents at various stages of consideration of the matter. However, going by his written submissions, the former CPIO took a very narrow interpretation of point No. 1 of the RTI application. If one takes into account the written submissions of Shri V. Rajan, the former CPIO, the intention clearly was not to provide the information concerning the action taken by the Respondents to the RTI applicant, who is a victim of the fraud committed in this case, but to find a reason to deny it. Even going by the narrow interpretation mentioned by the former CPIO, his reply was completely misleading, in that it gave the impression that the Respondents had no information in regard to the subject of the RTI application. A more appropriate reply, even on the basis of the interpretation of Shri V. Rajan, would have been that the Respondents had not prepared an investigation report on the matter. With regard to point No. 2, Shri Rajan has stated that the Respondents did not send any letter to public / private banks / nonbanking financial companies on the subject. Explaining this statement, he stated that HFCs do not come under the purview of nonbanking financial companies, as the same are not registered with the RBI. In this context, we note the following response, under the Section Frequently Asked Questions on the website of RBI, to the question Is it necessary that every NBFC should be registered with RBI?: CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
In terms of section 45ia of the rbi act, 1934, no Nonbanking Financial company can commence or carry on business of a nonbanking financial institution without a) obtaining a certificate of registration from the Bank and without having a Net Owned Funds of 25 lakhs ( Two crore since April 1999). However, in terms of the powers given to the Bank, to obviate dual regulation, certain categories of NBFCs which are regulated by other regulators are exempted from the requirement of registration with RBI viz. Venture Capital Fund/Merchant Banking companies/Stock broking companies registered with SEBI, Insurance Company holding a valid Certificate of Registration issued by IRDA, Nidhi companies as notified under Section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956, Chit companies as defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982,Housing Finance Companies regulated by National Housing Bank, Stock Exchange or a Mutual Benefit company.From the above, it is clear that housing finance companies regulated by NHB are included under the rubric NBFC by the Reserve Bank of India. The Respondents exchanged communications and held meetings with HFCs and, therefore, the former CPIO cannot claim that no letters were sent to NBFCs. Regarding point No. 3, the former CPIO has stated that the Respondents did not receive any updated information on the action taken by the respective banks. However, it is clear from the letter dated 15.1.2016 of the CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Respondents that the Respondents did receive information concerning the action taken by HFCs, both through written communications and in the course of meeting(s) with them. In any case, the Appellants query at No. 3 did not define the institution, about whose action information was sought. Thus, the query covered action both by NHB and the HFCs. It is clear that NHB also took some action after sending initial communications to HFCs.
25. In the light of the foregoing, the submissions made by Shri V. Rajan, GM and former CPIO are an afterthought to justify his act of giving incorrect information and a misleading reply vide his letter dated 25.9.2014. As stated in paragraph 13 above, Shri V. Rajan had himself signed the letter dated 18.4.2012, asking the addressee to look into the complaint to the effect that HFCs and banks had make multiple financing of flats in the housing project in question. Therefore, he cannot take the plea that he was unaware of the action taken by the Respondents on the complaints received in the matter. The above is a pointer to the fact that Shri V. Rajan knowingly gave an incorrect / misleading reply vide his letter dated 25.9.2014. This resulted in denial of information for a period far in excess of a hundred days for which penalty can be imposed under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act. Therefore, by virtue of the power vested in us under Section 19 (8) (c) of the RTI Act, read with subsection (1) of Section 20, we impose the maximum penalty of Rs. CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 25,000/ on Shri V. Rajan, GM and former CPIO. The Respondent public authority is directed to recover this amount in five equal instalments of Rs. 5000/ each from the monthly salary of Rs. V. Rajan, beginning with the salary of the month of May 2016. The amounts so deducted be remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
26. With regard to the show cause notice issued to S/Shri Lalit Kumar, GM and former CPIO and Sanjeev Srivastava, DGM and APIO (paragraph 16), we were informed by Shri K. Chakravarthy, CPIO that the Commissions interim order dated 5.2.2016, containing the direction in paragraph 8 to the CPIO to forward a copy of the said order to certain entities, was received at the office of the Respondents on 12.2.2016. Shri Lalit Kumar, former CPIO stated that he was on medical leave for a surgery between mid February to the third week of March, 2016 and action on the above direction of the Commission was to be taken by Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, APIO. In his written submissions dated 18.4.2016, Shri Srivastava has admitted that he did not act on the above direction of the Commission. He states that the lapse was neither deliberate nor intentional and adds: I should have personally read the Order, which I didnt, and had relied completely and totally on what CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 was conveyed to me. He has expressed his sincere regret. We have considered his submissions and cannot but conclude that nonaction on the Commissions above directive amounted to wilful abdication of his duty by Shri Srivastava. From his submissions, it is clear that the Commissions order was within his knowledge, but he claims that instead of reading it himself, he relied upon the reading of someone else in his office in respect of its contents. Shri Srivastavas nonaction on the Commissions directive amounted to obstruction in furnishing the information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause. As stated above, it amounted to wilful abdication of his responsibility as APIO in respect of action on the said order. The order was received in the office of the Respondents on 12.2.2016. Providing for a reasonable period of seven days to the APIO to act on the same, Shri Sanjeev Srivastava should have acted on the Commissions directive in paragraph 8 by 19.2.2016, which was a Friday. The directive in question was eventually acted upon by Shri K. Chakravarthy, CPIO on 31.3.2016 after the third hearing on the matter. Thus, the delay in carrying out this order was from February
22 (the next working day after February 19) to March 30, totalling thirty eight days in all. By virtue of the power vested in us under Section 19 (8) (c) of the RTI Act, read with Section 20 (1) of the said Act, we impose penalty of Rs. 9,500/ (38x250) on Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, APIO for the obstruction caused by him in furnishing of the information to the CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Appellant. The Respondent public authority is directed to recover the above amount in two equal instalments of Rs. 4750/ from the monthly salary of Shri Sanjeev Srivastava, APIO, beginning with the salary of the month of May, 2016. The amount so deducted be remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.
27. In the course of the proceedings, the Respondents spoke of their regulatory role vizaviz HFCs. However, during the hearing on 19.4.2016, they stated that under their Grievance Redressal Policy (revised as on 4.12.2014), they play only a facilitative role by taking up complaints received from public with the concerned HFCs. It also appears that since the matter has gone to courts, in terms of Section 6 of the Grievance Redressal Policy regarding Exclusions, NHB have washed their hands of it. Thus, it appears that they played only a limited role in dealing with the complaints in the year 2012. The Commission would, however, refrain from sitting in judgment over whether this role was adequate on the part of a regulator to bring succour to the victims of the fraud in this case, including the Appellant. However, it is clear that when he sought information from the Respondents under the RTI Act, he received an incorrect and misleading reply from the CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 CPIO. The First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal of the Appellant in three sentences as follows: I have perused the connected papers. I understand that your application dated September 01, 2014 was received by us on September 01, 2014 to which reply was furnished by the CPIO vide letter No. NHB(ND)/ RTI/451/13874/2014 dated September 25, 2014 (copy enclosed). I agree with the decision of the CPIO on the points raised by you in your appeal. It may be mentioned that in his appeal to the FAA, the Appellant had stated that he was not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO in the light of the letter No. NHB(ND)/DSR/Complaint Cell /7211/2012 dated 18.4.2012 issued by the Respondents concerning the matter. It appears that the FAA passed his order without applying his mind to the appeal before him. The incorrect and misleading reply of the Respondents and nonprovision of the information sought by him, impaired the ability of the Appellant to pursue his grievance in appropriate forums. As stated in paragraph 7 above, the Appellant paid Rs. 22.5 lakhs in all to the promoters of the project in question. His RTI application was filed on 1.9.2014 and as per the RTI Act, he should have been provided the information latest by 1.10.2014. Even if the CPIO acts with dispatch on the Commissions directive for furnishing information, contained in paragraph 22 above, the information would get furnished to the Appellant at the earliest by 1.5.2016. Thus, furnishing of information would have got delayed by nineteen months. On the amount CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 that he borrowed to make the payment for the flat booked in his name, the Appellant has been paying interest at the rate of 11.75% to DHFL, as per the repayment schedule of First Blue HFL submitted by him (First Blue HFL has since merged with Dewan HFL as stated above in this order). Taking into account this rate and compounding it every month as per the terms of the loan, the Appellant has suffered loss of interest of Rs. 4,57,600 approximately for the period 1.10.2014 to 30.4.2016, on the total amount of Rs. 22.5 lakhs paid by him to the promoters of the project. In our view, in the interest of justice, the Respondents should pay him compensation of 15% of this amount, which comes to Rs. 68,640/. However, with a view to arriving at a round figure and by virtue of the power vested in us under Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act, we direct the public authority to pay a compensation of Rs. 65,000/ (Rs. Sixty five thousand only) to the Appellant, within fifteen days of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. It shall be the responsibility of the CPIO to ensure compliance with this order of the Commission.
28. With the above directions and observations, the appeal is disposed of.
29. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 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) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Dist. Gautam Budha Nagar,
2. The InspectorinCharge, Police Station, Sector49,Noida, G.B. Nagar, U.P
3. The Inspector, Office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, EOW, Crime Branch, Mandir Marg, New Delhi110001
4. Shri Hridesh Kumar, IAS, District Magistrate, Collectorate, Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida
5. Anti Land & Bldg. Racket Section, EOW, Police Station Mandir Marg Complex, Crime Branch, New Delhi
6. The Additional Commissioner of Police, CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 EOW, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi
7. The Deputy Commissioner EOW, EOW Mandir Marg Police Station Complex, New Delhi110001
8. The Joint Commissioner, EOW, EOW Mandir Marg Police Station Complex, New Delhi110001
9. The Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi
10. The Chief Development Officer, Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P.
11. The Chief Executive Officer Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Warden House, 2nd Floor, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001
12. The Managing Director & CEO GIC Housing Finance Ltd., 6th Floor, Royal Insurance Building, 14, Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020 CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
13. The Vice Chairman & CEO Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg,
169 Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020
14. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, M 62, 63 1st, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001
15. The Managing & Chief Executive, L & T Housing Finance Limited., L&T House, Narottam Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001
16. The Managing Director & CEO LIC Housing Finance Limited., Bombay Life Building, 2nd Floor, 45/47 Veer Nariman Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001
17. The Managing Director PNB Housing Finance Limited, 9th Floor Bhawan, 22 KG Marg, New Delhi 110001
18. The Manager / Secretary Golf Course Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd., D162, 1st Floor, Sector 10, CIC/SH/C/2014/000550 Noida (U.P.) CIC/SH/C/2014/000550
Comments