Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
alchemist.india

Education Loan Refused on completely wrong basis - Now sanctioned through RTI

Recommended Posts

alchemist.india

Dear Members,

 

I am lady student pursuing my Masters in Engineering from an AICTE and Pune university affiliated institute in Pune. I had applied for education loan from SBI at my native place before one and half months.

 

After discussion with the bank officer we made my father-in-law as co-applicant (he is a govt. servant) as my husband has started a business recently so collecting all income proofs would have been a problem. We had also provided a guarantor with all necessary documents.

 

However after a month the application was returned from District headquarter of the bank stating that 'Father-in-law as a co-applicant is not valid'.

 

Due to delay in their reply, we missed the opportunities to apply any other bank.

 

Please let me know

1. if there is any such rule/norms/Guidelines, can can I file RTI in this matter.

2. If yes, then can any action be taken against the bank office who accepted our application.

3. Can we held them accountable for delay in replying as Education has to be treated on priority.

 

Kindly help me in framing a RTI for above at earliest as every passing day is precious and I might not be able to apply anywhere if this gets delayed.

 

I look forward for your reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra

1. if there is any such rule/norms/Guidelines, can can I file RTI in this matter..... File RTI Appl with same bank and get certified copy of norms / rules in relation to Education Loans .

2. If yes, then can any action be taken against the bank office who accepted our application.... we can not advice on this since this is RTI Forum for RTI discussions only .

3. Can we held them accountable for delay in replying as Education has to be treated on priority..... we can not advice on this since this is RTI Forum for RTI discussions only .

 

Common sense says that till the terms of contract / agreement are accepted in writing by both parties , parties are not liable to each other .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alchemist.india

Dr. Malhotra Sir,

 

Thanks for replying. I think bank's concern should be looking into re-paying capacity/probability of the applicant or co-applicant and Guarantor and not how they are related to each other.

 

In case of personal/business or any kind of loan that's what they are concerned about and not about if the parties are blood relative or not.

 

In all probability if there is any rule/norms/guideline at SBI which says, 'co-applicant should be blood relative/father/husband' then I think it's the most absurd rule and this clearly violates the purpose and spirit of education loan made available.

 

By the way, Education loan application form itself mentions the work 'Guardian' can be a co-applicant.

 

I look forward for more comments and suggestion on drafting a RTI to fight this injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I think you should scale up this matter to Chief General Manager, Local Head Office of the bank. Please visit website of bank http://www.statebankofindia.com/user.htm?action=viewsection&id=0,453,554 for addresses. However, loaning is prerogative of bank or lender and we cannot compel them to have particular type of rule. We can assert directives given by RBI or Central Govt. Father-in-law can be treated as guardian but no where it is written like this. Bank sanctioning officer must be a negative person and would be in search of a reason to some how reject the application though central govt and RBI attaches overriding importance to educational loans specially to women. I may inform you that in all priority sector loans, if sanctioning officer wants to refuse loan, he has to obtain concurrence of his next higher officer with cogent reasons.

 

You can file RTI application by visiting:

 

Central Govt application:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/19-rti-application-central-govt-info.html

 

Make effective:

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/93-how-make-rti-application-effective.html

 

You can address RTI application to Branch Head of the same branch where you submitted application as SBI has designated all branch heads as ACPIO under RTI Act. You can pay filing fee of Rs.10 in cash to branch head. Just amend point No. 4 in above link to read "Filing fee of Rs.10 is paid herewith in cash to ACPIO"

 

You can ask:

 

Background: I had submitted education loan application at ____ branch on ______ for loan of Rs. ______. The same is rejected vide attached letter dated _______. Now please let me know:

 

1. Please provide me certified copy of bank's rules for sanction of educational loans as on date I submitted loan application.

 

2.Please provide me exact definition of Guardian for educational loan

 

3. Please provide me detailed notes and papers leading to rejection of loan application.

 

4. Please provide me rules or circulars applicable to rejection of educational loan applications

 

5. Provide me name, designation and office address of the officer who rejected loan application.

 

6. Please provide me certified copies of record indicating concurrence of officer higher in rank for rejecting my application. I understand that priority sector applications can be rejected only after approval of higher officer to sanctioning officer.

 

7. Please provide me No. of applications received, sanctioned and rejected under educational loan in Maharashtra by your bank for the years ended 31-03-2010 and 31-03-2011.

 

Please also visit:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/78187-bank-becomes-positive-after-rti-punches.html

 

RTI is a time consuming process and hence you should avail loan from some other bank. However, continue to punch SBI so that at least others will not be put to awkward situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Officer who accepted application cannot be held accountable, though he appears to be positive. In his view, father in law can be guardian in case of married women.

 

Since there is huge importance to educational and housing loans etc, banks have created specialized offices for processing such applications with expertise and speed. Branches just collect applications and send to such specialised offices in their area for further processing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alchemist.india

Dear Sir,

 

Thanks for your reply. This will indeed help me a lot.

 

Basically, what I want to expose is the way these guys are treating the education loan applications of deserving students in a discretionary ways. First of all, in order to avoid work they dont entertain your application, and dont give correct information.

 

And after taking students for a ride for close one-two months then comes the outcome which is completely out of spirit. They are suppose to work, even though they are working for PSU bank like SBI.

 

And more importantly Education loan is not a freebee they do charge a hefty interest once you avail it.

 

I will not let this go and follow up religiously with the help of RTI.

 

 

Thanking you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dr.s.malhotra
'Guardian' can be a co-applicant.

Guardian of a married woman is her husband .

Ld. Sh. JP Shah has suggested everything and there is nothing more to add .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

I appreciate your efforts and this portal will assist you in this matter. Citizens will have to wake up against such callous attitude of banks which grossly affects career of youths.

 

I invite you to following link of Shri Sharad Phadke of Pune a very senior citizen [ 70 years] is chasing various banks and RBI to ensure that customers get penalty of ATM failed transaction as prescribed by RBI. He would be inspecting record of a bank on 20-09-2011 at Pune as per directives of Central Information Commission:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/48890-rti-help-atm-failed-transactions.html

 

His efforts were appreciated and published by Times of India, Money Life and other local papers. You can contact him by sending personal message through this portal. Cell numbers or email IDs are prohibited on this portal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jps50

Bank could have added your husband plus father in law as co-applicants just to technically join guardian. There are large number of cases, where non-relatives join hands to avail different loans. In fact partnership is subtantively a joint venture where partners need not be relatives.

 

Please read

 

http://www.iba.org.in/educational_loan.asp

 

http://www.statebankofindia.com/user.htm

 

Your father in law could have been treated as third party as guarantor or co-borrower.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alchemist.india

Hello Sir,

 

Thanks for your post again. I went through the posts and found it really encouraging. Well, I was thinking of uploading my complaint on http://dpg.gov.in but guess what!.............

 

As expected, after hitting the submit button, it shows some Unhandled Exception.

 

Nevermind, I will try again.

 

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alchemist.india

Dear Sir,

 

With your valuable guidance and reference documents provided in the links posted by you, I have modified the draft suggested by you.

 

I hope it's not too much of trouble for you if I can request you to kindly take a look and suggest any changes if required. I am not sure of point no. 17-19 whether they are relevant or not (in fact if you could please through some light on those, it will be great). Please feel free to suggest any improvements.

 

I will be mailing this tomorrow.

 

Thanks in advance again.

 

Background: I had submitted education loan application at xxxxxxx branch on 9th Aug. 2011 for loan of Rs.xxxxxxxxxx only. The same is rejected vide attached letter xxxxxxxxx dated 25th Aug. 2011. Now please let me know:

 

1. Daily progress made on my application till date of your reply.

 

2. Names, designations and office addresses of the officials with whom my application was lying during this period and date wise period with each official and action taken by him/her.

 

3. Please also provide me file notings till date.

 

4. Please inform me, according to your rules or citizens charter or any other order, number of days in which such a matter should have been dealt with and resolved. Please also provide a copy of these rules.

 

5. Please provide me certified copy of bank's rules for sanction of educational loans as on date I submitted loan application.

 

6. Please provide me exact definition of ‘Guardian’ for educational loan.

 

7. Please provide me detailed notes and papers leading to rejection of loan application.

 

8. Please provide me rules or circulars applicable to rejection of educational loan applications

 

9. Provide me name, designation and office address of the officer who rejected loan application.

 

10. Please provide me certified copies of record indicating concurrence of officer higher in rank for rejecting my application. I understand that priority sector applications can be rejected only after approval of higher officer to sanctioning officer.

 

11. Please provide me No. of applications received, sanctioned and rejected under educational loan in Maharashtra by your bank for the years ended 31-03-2010 and 31-03-2011.

 

12. Please provide me no. of Education loan application received and sanctioned by your bank in the state of Maharashtra where co-applicant was other then father/mother/husband.

 

13. Kindly let me know under which rule/norms/guidelines they were (refer point 8) sanctioned along with an attested photocopy of those rule/norms/guidelines.

 

14. Provide me the attested photocopy of rule/norms/guidelines which states ‘Father-in-law can’t be accepted as co-applicant’.

15. If there is no such rule/norms/guidelines then please let me know what action have you taken against the officer for giving misleading, incorrect and false information.

 

16. Please provide certified extract from service rules which provide for departmental action against employees of your public authority for not complying with laws and rules enacted by Parliament or State Assembly.

 

17. Name, address, email ID, official mobile number and designation of Transparency Officer if any appointed as per CIC directives vide orders Nr CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 15.11.2010. If not appointed reasons on record be intimated to me.

 

18. Present status of compliance with sections 4.1.a and 4.1.c of RTI Act by your public authority.

 

19. Name, address, email ID of Central Point created as directed per OM No. 1/32/2007-IR dated 14-11-2007 of DoPT, Govt of India, New Delhi.

 

 

Kindly furnish the information to each and every point mentioned above. You can deny information only u/s 8 or 9 as mandated in section 7.1 of RTI Act. I also append below extracts from CIC decisions:

A] “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006.

B] “The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.”CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006.

C] Redirecting this application to other CPIO will amount to violation of a] sub sections 4 and 5 of section 5 of RTI Act b] directives issued by Government of India, DoPT, New Delhi as contained in its notification No.1/14/2008-IR dated 28-07-08 c] CIC decisions No 10/1/2005-cic dated 25-02-2006 and No.ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 dated 06-03-2006. C/PIO to whom application is submitted is duty bound to collect information from any source within the public authority in the world and to supply to the applicant. Transfer of RTI application within public authority is against provisions of RTI Act.

 

 

 

Signature of Applicant: ____________

 

Notes:

A] I add that an applicant under The RTI Act 2005 is also a consumer under The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as decided by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 28-05-2009 in Revision Petition Nr. 1975 OF 2005.

B] Non-compliance of RTI Act 2005 amounts to breach of fundamental rights of citizens under article 19.1.a of Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharadphadke
Hello Sir,

Thanks for your post again. I went through the posts and found it really encouraging. Well, I was thinking of uploading my complaint on http://dpg.gov.in but guess what!.............

As expected, after hitting the submit button, it shows some Unhandled Exception.

Nevermind, I will try again.

Thanks.

 

Site is down from few days for maintenance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharadphadke

In your first try the application is very good.

 

In place of Daily progress say day to day

Ask for "Certified Xerox of file notings"

Ask for file inspection on which the replies are based.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alchemist.india

Dear Members,

 

Thank all for your valuable guidance and help on this, especially JPS50.

 

Within 3 days of reaching my RTI application the bank manager, personally called up to request a meeting and education loan was sanctioned within 8 days.

 

I am sure, next time he will think twice before summarily rejecting any education loan application.

 

That's the power of RTI.

 

Thanks again for your valuable guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr V S Prasanna Rajan

I have enclosed a file containing the RBI directives to lenders. Para 5. in the directive mandates the lenders to specify the reasons for rejecting all categories of loans irrespective of the amount.

vsprajan

RBI directives to lenders.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 297/IC(A)/2006
      F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00663
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Gangaiah Nayakar, 3/488, Rajapalayam Salai, T. N.C.Alangulam, District - Virudhunagar-626127
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Customers Service Department, Central office, 763,Anna Salai, Channai-600 002. DECISION
       
      The appellant had sought certain information, which was largely furnished to him.
      The CPIO however denied the information relating to the details of loan accounts of another person and other documents submitted by him. The CPIO contented that the information sought is related to personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      There is no denial of information to the appellant. The Banks are expected to maintain confidentiality of the accounts of its customers and that the documents submitted by its customers do not fall under public domain. Hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof M. M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download Segment



    • armyguy
      By armyguy
      This RTI is a powerful tool to expose major policy decisions. Recently a major breakthrough happened with effort in Delhi to privatize water supply in the city.
       
      Apparently, this was a proposed World Bank funded effort. The proposal was on since the mid nineties in complete secrecy. However, some news leaked out in to the press, and an RTI petition was filed asking for the files on this process.
       
      At first there was a lot of resistance, but finally the files were made public, and the story was shocking. Apparently, the World Bank was arm twisting and almost dictating policy to the government. The process of privatization (or any government work) takes place with bids by bidding companies. There is a two layered process, where first in this case the top six companies would be selected, and then in the second round, the best among them would be selected. Here, in the first round, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, the well known consulting firm, had a bid that came in tenth. By law, they should have been eliminated. But the world bank insisted that PWC be considered. At first the government protested, but with continuous pressure relented, and declared PWC to be selected in the top six by declaring it to be an Indian company! In the next round, again PWC fared badly, with only a 67% score, and a terrible proposal. Again the world bank pressurized the government (by asking it to remove the people who evaluated the proposal), and forced the government to declare the PWC bid as the winner. Again, the government capitulated to pressure.
       
      It wasn’t just this, but the entire process of water privatization in this proposal was rather absurd, and would have affected millions of people adversely.
       
      Bowing to public pressure (after the dealings were revealed due to the RTI petition), the government scrapped the project completely.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy