Delhi High Court
J.P. Sharma vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 25 January, 2017
$~18.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 664/2017 and CM APPL. 3102/2017
J.P. SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Khatana, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 25.01.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for directions to the respondents/Bank to furnish him the full details and
bifurcation and copies of the statement of accounts of the Consumer loan,
Car loan and Personal loan obtained by him, by applying the staff rate of
interest from January, 1999 to 21.01.2002 and further, to direct the
respondents/Bank to pay him the differential amount.
2. The petitioner, who appears on person, submits that earlier hereto, he
had filed two petitions against the respondents/Bank, registered as W.P.(C)
9446/2015 and W.P.(C) 7819/2016. Vide order dated 05.10.2015 passed in
W.P.(C) 9446/2015, the respondents were directed to consider the grievance
raised by the petitioner in the writ petition and decide the same by passing a
speaking order and liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail of his
remedies available in law in case his grievance still survives. It is not
disputed that pursuant to the said order, the respondents/Bank had
communicated a decision to the petitioner.
3. Not satisfied with the decision taken by the respondents/Bank, the
petitioner filed another petition, registered as W.P.(C)7819/2016, claiming
inter alia that the subsequent calculations done by the Bank were also
erroneous. He, however, confirmed that he had no complaint with regard to
the interest charged by the respondents/Bank in respect of his housing loan.
The dispute raised by the petitioner was with regard to the Personal loan,
Consumer loan and Car loan and he claimed that the special rate of interest
was applicable to him with regard to the said loans, totalling to a sum of
Rs.1,35,000/-, which plea had not been considered by the respondents/Bank.
4. Vide order dated 05.09.2016, the captioned petition was disposed of
with directions issued to the respondents/Bank to recalculate the interest
component on the aforesaid loans and convey a decision to the petitioner
within eight weeks. In terms of the said order, the respondents/Bank
communicated its decision dated 27.10.2016 to the petitioner stating inter
alia that interest has been recalculated in respect of the Personal loan,
Consumer loan and Car loan and the said loan accounts were opened in the
concerned branch as staff loan from the very beginning and the interest as
applicable to staff has been applied to the said accounts. The details of the
calculation of interest have also been furnished in the letter dated
27.10.2016.
5. The petitioner is again aggrieved by the said calculation and states
that the same is also incorrect and the respondents/Bank be called upon to
substantiate the details of the calculation given in the impugned
communication dated 27.10.2016 by furnishing him copies of the statement
of accounts of each loan and the interest charged on all the loans and
thereafter, pay him the differential amount.
6. Writ proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as an alternative
route for gathering information under the RTI Act. There is a mechanism
laid down in the said Act for obtaining information. If the petitioner wishes
to seek certain information from the respondents/Bank, it is for him to file
an appropriate application under RTI Act. In any case, disputed questions of
facts have been raised in the present petition with regard to the basis of the
interest calculated by the respondents/Bank as set out in the impugned
communication, which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. This Court
therefore declines to entertain the present petition.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of alongwith the pending
application, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek his remedies, if any,
against the respondents/Bank in accordance with law.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JANUARY 25, 2017
rkb
