Central Information Commission
Mr.Gopal Soni vs Department Of Financial Services on 24 April, 2012
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001688
Appellant /Complainant : Shri Gopal Soni, Ajmer
Public Authority : Department of Financial Services, N.Delhi
(Sh. Jitender Kumar Mehan, Under Secy./.CPIO)
Date of Hearing : 24 April 2012
Date of Decision : 24 April 2012
Facts:
1. Shri Gopal Soni submitted RTI application dated 29 December 2010 before the CPIO, Ministry Of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi seeking the following:
1. A list of legal nonentities working under autonomous bodies under administrative control of Ministry of Finance.
2. Since the expenses of un official forum called GIPSA exceed rs. 160 Lakh (excludinf salary related expenses) incurred by top ranking (4) insurance company officials the applicant seeks information of measures initiated or under consideration of the Ministry to ensure that un registered and un regulated legal non entitites like GIPSA do not become a forum of Tax embezzlement and Tax evasion.
3. The applicant seeks all dates when ministry officials visited GIPSA or similar legal non entities from 2002 till date including the name and rank of Ministry Officials.
4. Information of all the dates when officials form legal non entities e.g. . GIPSA visited Ministry Office including the name, rank of Officials concerned.
5. Duly certified written copy of the emails issued by Insurance Division Officials in consideration of RTI Application/appeals of the whistle blower applicant during NovemberDecember 2010.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001688
2. Vide CPIO's Order dated 21 January 2011, CPIO did not provide the information on the grounds that the Queries in the RTI Application were vague in nature.
Not satisfied by the CPIO's reply, Appellant preferred appeal dated 5 February 2011, before the First Appellate Authority.
3. Vide FAA Order dated 8 March 2011, FAA rejected the Appeal citing the reason that the queries are vague in nature.
4. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
5. Matter was heard today. Respondent as above, appeared in person as did the representatives of the thirdparty, namely, GIPSA. Appellant was heard via videoconferencing from Ajmer.
Decision notice
6. All parties have been heard. It was pointed out by the Commission at the inception of the hearing, that the matter pertaining to whether GIPSA was a public authority or not, was pending before the High Court and therefore the status of GIPSA at the hearing today was simply that of thirdparty.
Point 1: appellant clarified that when he used the phrase 'legal nonentity', he actually meant 'not a legal entity'. Respondent stated that no such list of organisations was maintained by them and therefore the same could not be provided. However, presuming that the appellant sought information pertaining to GIPSA, the same had been provided to him by the respondent.
Point 2: representative of GIPSA has stated that a mechanism exists for accounting and what ever procedures and accounting rules are followed by the four member general insurance companies, are also followed by GIPSA who incurs expenditure on the activities undertaken on behalf of the four general insurance companies. The CPIO, Department of Financial Services also stated that the matter raised under this point falls under the normal auditing system of the four General Insurance Companies which are independent public authorities.
Points 3 and 4: representative of GIPSA and CPIO stated that information sought under these two points was not maintained by them and therefore could not be furnished to the appellant.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001688 Point 5: it was agreed that the appellant would provide the CPIO with a copy of the email letter written by the former Joint Secretary with reference to his RTI application within one week of receipt of the order. Respondent, after ascertaining the information held by the Department from the representative of NIC, would provide information if available within four weeks thereafter.
7. Commission takes this opportunity to observe that once again the appellant has used inappropriate language in his RTI application such as "a forum of embezzlement and tax evasion". He is directed to desist from using such language while exercising the right given to him under the transparency legislation.
(Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(T. K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Tel. No. 01126105027 Copy to:
1. Shri Gopal Soni C231, Panchsheel Nagar Ajmer305004 (Rajasthan)
2. The CPIO Under Secretary Department of Financial Services 3rd. Floor, Jeevan Vihar, Parliament Street, New Delhi110001
3. The Appellate Authority Director Department of Financial Services 3rd. Floor, Jeevan Vihar, Parliament Street, New Delhi110001 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001688 Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001688