Central Information Commission
Shaik Ameer Basha vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 3 July, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/A/2024/105485
Shaik Ameer Basha .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC of India CRM Department,
Divisional Office, College Road,
Kadapa - 516004 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025
Date of Decision : 03.07.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.09.2023
CPIO replied on : 13.10.2023
First appeal filed on : 10.11.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 13.12.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.02.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.09.2023 seeking the following information:
"I Sri Shaik Ameer Basha, Resident of Akkayapalli, Kadapa belongs to Shaik Community Caste and belongs BC-E caste group. But the LIC agent of your office Sri Mahaboob Tara belongs Patan Muslim Caste. I came to know that he produced false caste certificate as Shaik and got jobs for him and his sons also. I request that the qualification certificates and his caste certificate may be send to the below said address. I have got his Patan caste certificates from his studying school."Page 1 of 4
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.10.2023 stating as under:
"As the information sought by you, is pertaining to personal information of third party, and there is no larger public interest. Moreover the concerned party has not given consent for disclosure of his personal information.
Hence the required information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (J) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 13.12.2023, held as under.
"On perusing the RTI application, the CPIO's reply and First Appeal, the Appellant is informed that the CPIO had aptly responded to the queries of the Appellant. The Appellant is informed as under:
Sri Mahaboob Tara, is an LIC agent and he is not our Permanent Employee, we are not paying any salary to him. We are paying only commission on the basis of business procured by him. More over we are not having his caste certificate. (Please quote appropriate Supreme substantiating your response Query-wise) Court/High Court/CIC decisions With this order, I dispose of the Appeal received on 17/11/2023 of Shri/Smt/Ms. S. Ameer Basha."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Ms. G. Chandrakala, CPIO-cum-Manager (CRM), attended the hearing through VC.
5. The Appellant did not participate in the hearing.
6. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is seeking personal information of third party which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act.
7. A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 23.06.2025, stating as under:
Page 2 of 4"With reference to the above complaint I request the Mahaboob Tara is originally belongs to Muslim Patan caste. I came to know that he produced fake certificate as Shaik Muslim caste and got LIC agent job in Kadapa LIC Office. I have made representation to produce his certificates under RTI Act to the Manager, CRM & CPIO, LIC of India, Divisional Officer, Kadapa, but neither reply nor intimation received from them till date. Kindly take action against concerned officers and Mahaboob Tara.
As I am herewith enclosing the statement of encumbrance on property (EC) - and in that EC on property it was clearly mentioned as MAHABOOB TARA PATAN for your reference. As required by you the copy of my letters dated 19- 09-2023, 13-10-2023, 10-11-2023 and 13-12-2023 are herewith enclose for your kind perusal."
8. A written submission has been received from Shri GKRV Ravi Kumar, FAA-cum-Senior Divisional Manager, vide letter dated 18.06.2025, stating as under:
"Second Appeal:
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO reply and First Appellate order, the appellant preferred an Second Appeal to the Hon'ble CIC as below: Request of caste certificated of Sri Mahaboob Tara, LIC Agent code no: 02843659. The Caste Mahaboob Tara is Patan. He produced certificate as Shaik. He deceived the caste.
Facts of the case and submission to the CIC.
The applicant is seeking information of sending of the qualification certificates and caste certificates of Mahaboob Tara, LIC Agent code: 02843659, Kadapa Branch Office, and the caste of Mahaboob Tara is PATAN and he produced certificate as SHAIK and deceived the caste.
As the information sought is pertaining to the third party which cannot be provided as per the provisions of the section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI ACT, 2005 THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY informed that, the CPIO had aptly responded to the queries of the Appelant and informed as " Sri Mahaboob Tara, is an LIC agent and he is not our permanent Employee, we are not paying any salary to him. We are paying only commission on the basis of business procured by him. Moreover we are not having his caste certificate".
We humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that:
The appellant had sought information regarding Caste certificate of Agent code 02843659. We bring to your kind notice that as per LIC of India (Agents), Regulations, 2017 as amended from to time. "Caste certificate is not a mandatory document at the time of recruitment of Agents. So Caste certificate is not available with us ".
In the light of the above, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to consider the case favorably and to dismiss summarily the second appeal filed by Sri Shaik Ameer Basha."Page 3 of 4
Decision:
9. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the records, observes that a suitable reply in terms of RTI Act has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 13.10.2023. From the record, it also reveals that the third party (LIC agent) is not an employee of Respondent Public Authority which explains the absence of the caste certificate with them.
10. Further, in this regard, the Commission also relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Baljeet Singh v. The PIO, Industrial Training Institute, Jahangirpuri & Anr. dated 01.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016, has held as under:
"11. In the case in hand, the respondent no.2 has sought the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The information is a personal information as the caste to which the petitioner belongs is an issue inter-se between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner i.e., between employer and employee and this aspect is governed by service rules. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. In fact, it is held so by a Coordinate Bench of this court in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, W.P.(C) 5812/2010 decided on November 8, 2013."
11. In view of the applicability of the above ratio, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply provided by the Respondent. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)