Central Information Commission
V S S Krishna vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 29 September, 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/2024/643436
V S S KRISHNA .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office, 'Yogakshema' Jeevan
Bima Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400021 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.08.2025
Date of Decision : 25.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.06.2024
CPIO replied on : 28.06.2024
First appeal filed on : 18.07.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.08.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 27.09.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 01.06.2024 seeking the following information:
"As a former FSE I want the accurate information and related document copies from your Central Office - Mumbai only. If the queries are not relevant to your authorities then transfer it to appropriate authorities.Page 1 of 15
QUERY - 01) As a former Financial Services Executive (FSE) I want to know whether FSE's are comes under "The Insurance act 1938"?
QUERY - 02) As a former Financial Services Executive (FSE) You engaged me as a Contract basis (Contractual Appointment) Now tell me are you follow the "Fair Labor Standard Act" for FSE? If yes then give me the relevant document copies. If No means then clearly declared that FSE's are not Contractual Employees.
QUERY - 03) As per your under control Salem Divisional Office - Salem RTI Reply for the Ref No: LICSZ/R/2019/50124 Receipt Date: 02.11.2019 & Reply Date: 27.11.2019 Refer the Query No - 09 it is very clear FSE's are not eligible for the Dearness Allowance (DA).
A) Now kindly tell me the exact information why the FSE's are not eligible for the Dearness Allowance (DA).
B) Why the DA (Component) is not available in the Gratuity Calculation which is calculated under the "The Payment of Gratuity act 2005". which is calculated for the Former FSE's.
QUERY - 04) As a Former FSE my code 0015070 in my partial tenure 09.05.2012 to 01.03.2016 for this particular you paid the remuneration to me in mode of "Consolidated Payment" Yes or No?
QUERY - 05) As per your under control Salem Divisional Office - Salem RTI Reply for the Ref No: LICSZ/R/E/24/00040 Receipt Date: 03.04.2024 Reply Date: 23.04.2024 for the reply for Query No: 01. It is very clear Regarding my issue you sent the letter to the customers. We hereby confirm that your name had been incorporated on the footer note of almost all the 2925 bonds as per the provision made by the Corporation.
We had given our reply dated 03.09.2020 to your RTI application Ref:
LICSZ/R/T/20/00032 dated 31.08.2020 stating that requests were made to the policyholders to contact the servicing branch office for service purpose in future instead of contacting you.
Now give me the copy / Specimen of the letter. I have full rights to verify the letter copy. If you fail to handover the copy of the letter means it is very clear that you given the incorrect information in RTI.
QUERY - 06) Your Salem Divisional Office paid the remuneration for me for the month of March 2017 on 27.04.2017 only. 1) Why these much days are delayed to pay the Remuneration to me? Give me the exact Page 2 of 15 reason. 2) Regarding this delay are you put proper arrears to me? If Yes then give me the valid document proof.
QUERY - 07) As per your officials records it is very clear that "2925 Policies are completed in my FSE Code 0015070 in the period of 09.05.2012 to 25.01.2018". Now tell me the 2925 policies original bonds are dispatched to the customer via Register Post or any Private Couriers services.
QUERY - 08) Give me the exact information about the Retention period is following in your corporation especially for the maintained for the Contractual Employee (I am one of your Former Contractual Employee - FSE) So, I have full rights to asked this information from your end.
QUERY - 09) What is the actual procedure is following in LIC OF INDIA to deliver the Original bonds to the customers who purchased the plans in the corporation. Register post, Private Couriers, or any Soft copy method (I am one of the policy holder in LIC so, I have full rights to know the method).
QUERY - 10) In your LIC OF INDIA I worked as a FSE almost 68 months. I entered in 6th Year Extension on 01.06.2017.
Now tell me The 6th Year Extension has any special terms and condition or it will follow by the previous contractual year's terms and conditions only."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 28.06.2024 stating as under:
"This has reference to your online RTI application dated 01/06/2024 seeking information under the RTI Act. 2005. The applicant is informed that query nos.(4), (5), (6) and (7) of your RTI application pertain to South Zone, hence the said queries have been transferred to South Zone and that the applicant will receive reply directly from them. Our reply for remaining queries as per the information received from the concerned department is as under:
Reply to Query No.(1):-
The applicant is informed that the information sought by the applicant is not clear and specific as required under section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information sought cannot be provided.Page 3 of 15
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, 2005 the applicant is informed that FSE's come under the purview of LIC of India Financial Services Executive Scheme 2007.
Reply to Query No. (2):-
The applicant is informed that the information sought is interrogatory and clarificatory in nature, which does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
Reply to Query No. (3):-
The applicant is informed that as per provisions of the Financial Services Executives Scheme 2007, there was no component called "Dearness Allowance" in the Remuneration. Hence inclusion of Dearness Allowance in calculation of Gratuity does not arise. (The query of similar nature was replied to applicant vide letter ref: CO/MBAC/FSE/2020-21/10 dated 15.09.2020 in response to CPGRAM complaint no.DEAID/E/2020/05645 dated 3/08/2020.) Reply to Querv No. (8):-
The applicant is informed that the information sought has already been provided in the Appellate order dated 21/05/2024 for the appeal ref:
LICOI/A/E/24/00051. The applicant is again informed that in LIC of India, maintenance of records is done as per the norms given under Preservation of Records. The same is available in public domain on the website of LIC of India since September 2021 and the path for the said information is as follows: www.licindia.in ->Investor Relations ->Policies and Code of Conduct -> Preservation of Records.
The applicant is also informed that the information sought as regards retention period for records of contractually engaged FSE's is not available with this office of Public Authority.
Reply to Query No. (9):-
The applicant is informed that the procedure followed in LIC of India to deliver the Original bonds to the Customers who have purchased the plans of the Corporation is to send an e-policy to the policyholders wherever email ID has been provided by the policyholders at proposal stage and also to send a physical copy of the policy bond through Speed Post by India Post.
Reply to Query No. (10):-
The applicant is informed that in 6 year, Financial Services Executive was required to procure minimum new business from attached outlets per quarter as under:Page 4 of 15
Period Lives required Eligible First Premium
Income required (in
Rs.)
6th Each quarter 90 in each quarter 4,50,000 in each
Year quarter
Total 6th year 360 18,00,000
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.07.2024.
The FAA vide its order dated 12.08.2024, 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.
After receipt of the appeal filed by the appellant, I have once again referred the appeal to the concerned department. Based on reply received from the concerned department, I have to inform the appellant as under:
As regards Query no. (1), CPIO vide response dated 28/06/2024 had informed the appellant that the information sought by the applicant is not clear and specific as required under section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information sought cannot be provided.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, 2005 the applicant is informed that FSEs come under the purview of LIC of India Financial Services Executive Scheme 2007.
I reiterate the reply given by the CPIO and further inform the appellant that the overall insurance business is governed by the Insurance Act, 1938.
The attention of the appellant is invited to the relevant excerpts of decision of the Madras High Court dated 23/05/2024 in Writ Petition No. 18088 of 2022 in the Appellant's own case:
"On perusal of the counter filed by the respondents and on hearing the submissions mode by the learned counsel appearing on either side, revealed that Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Statutory Corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. It has rules for appointment to permanent posts for all cadres and instructions for engagement of temporary staff in Class III and Class IV cadres. The permanent employees are governed by the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The temporary employees are governed by the LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not covered under any of these Regulations/Instructions.Page 5 of 15
Regarding Query no. (2), the appellant is once again informed that clarification/confirmation/interpretation on information de not come within the purview of RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO can furnish only the information available as a record, already maintained with the office of Public Authority The attention of the appellant is invited to the relevant decision of the Hon'ble CIC in this context File No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000366 Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta, v/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dehradun Mumbai dated December 19, 2014 "The appellant. Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta, submitted RTI application dated September 30, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai seeking information regarding rules framed by the Company regarding intime renewals of other insurers etc.; through a total of 7 points Vide reply dated October 23, 2013, the CPIO denied the information on point no. 1 on the ground that the information sought was not held by them and also denied information on point nos. 2 to 7 on the ground that neither such 'yes/no answer to situational questions was held on record nor did interrogation in the nature of 'yes/no to leading/ suggestive question fall within the scope of Section 2(j) r/w 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Not satisfied by the decision of CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal dated November
21. 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the information had been denied to him by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated December 13, 2013, the FAA upheld the denial of the information.
After hearing the submissions of the respondents and perusing the facts on record, the Commission upholds the decision of the respondents. The appeal is disposed of."
As regards Query no. (8), it is observed that the appellant is only seeking further clarifications on the information already furnished to him, which does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
He is again informed that the information sought as regards retention period for records of contractually engaged FSEs is not available in record form with this office of Public Authority.
However, in the spirit of RTI Act, 2005 he is informed that the records of FSEs are available with the concerned Divisional Offices. The attention of the appellant is invited to the relevant excerpts of decision of the Hon'ble CIC in this context: Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2021/639758 dated 28.12.2022 Mr. N. Sunil Kumar VS Central Office LIC:
Page 6 of 15The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the respondent vide its letter dated 25.05.2021 has informed the factual position in the matter to the appellant. The Commission further observes that queries of the appellant is more in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice/clarification from the CPIO and he has expected that the CPIO should interpret his situational query and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
Responding to Query no. (10), CPIO vide response dated 28/06/2024 has already conveyed 6th year Minimum Business parameters to the appellant. Now at appeal stage as explained by the appellant, he is seeking information about termination related terms and conditions applicable to the FSEs in the extension period. Hence, Circular ref. CO/MBAC/ZD/6/2013 dated 21.01.2013 is enclosed herewith for his ready reference.
It is observed that the appellant is submitting repeated applications on similar subjects.
Hence the attention of the appellant is invited to the relevant excerpts of decision of the Hon'ble CIC in the appellants own case: Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/629045 dated 13/06/2022 Mr. VSS Krishna VS Central Office LIC:
The Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the CPIO as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that more than 26 cases of the same Appellant have already been heard and disposed of by another bench of this Commission. It is also worth noting that 8 Second Appeals was listed on 08.03.2024, for hearing which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications with different public authority. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the Page 7 of 15 idea of exercising her Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional.
The Commission further finds it expedient to note the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the purpose of redressing his service- related grievance through instrumentality of RTI which is likely to clog the RTI channels and thus, depriving the ordinary citizen to exercise their right to information. Further, the PIOs are already doing this assignment under the RTI Act in addition to their normal duties. In this regard, the Commission would like to draw attention of the parties towards a recent decision of this bench, wherein aspect of "misuse of the right to information Act by the Appellant" has been explained in a detailed manner.
The relevant extract of ratio laid down in the matter of Nandkishor Gupta v. CPIO, Northwestern Railway, Head Quarter Office, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017 is as under: .... Under the provisions of the RTI Act, while the CPIO/PIO is obliged to facilitate free flow of information to the citizen, it is equally incumbent upon the information seeker to put his/her application in the simplest form possible so that CPIO/PIO can understand the request unambiguously. The Commission is also mindful of the fact that the unenviable noble duty assigned under the RTI Act to Central Public Information Officers (CPIO) and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) by the respective Public Authorities is 'in addition to their normal duties and without any additional remuneration paid for the same for which they must devote extra efforts, time, and energy..." The Appellant is therefore cautioned to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
The reply dated 28/06/2024 given by the CPIO is upheld. With this order, I dispose of the appeal received on 18/07/2024 of Shri VSS Krishna."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal against point No. 1, 2, 8 and 10 of RTI application.
5. A written submission dated 21.08.2025 filed by Ms. Madhavi Tari, Secretary (RTI) is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO reply and First Appellate order, the appellant preferred his Second Appeal for query nos. (1), (2), (8) & (10) to the Hon'ble CIC which is as below:Page 8 of 15
I request this Honorable Central Information Commission kindly direct the LIC OF INDIA Central Office to provide the accurate and exact information for the queries and supply the document copies with proper attestation.
We humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that:
4) CPIO had aptly responded to the information sought in query nos. (1), (2), (8) & (1 which were upheld by the 1st Appellate Authority.
The Hon'ble CIC is informed that The Financial Services Executives (FSE) Scheme was approved in the 529th Board Meeting of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, held /06/2007. The Scheme clearly mentioned that the engagement shall be purely contractual basis initially for a period of three years and subsequently the he proved extension of contractual period of FSEs up to 8th year.
Shri VSS Krishna was engaged as Financial Services Executive (FSE) on 08/05/2012: In the engagement letter given to him, the terms of selection are clearly mentioned as Contractual appointment for a period of 3 years as Financial Services Executive Renewable at the sole discretion of the Corporation subject to certain terms and conditions for another 2 years only. The same was acknowledged by Shri VSS Krishna on 08/05/2012 The acknowledged copy of the said letter is enclosed herewith for ready reference (Annexure Al Though the engagement of FSEs was on contractual basis, persons getting engaged looked for pertinence in job. Hence they were given option wef. 01/09/2015 to take up direct agency or CLIA scheme prior to withdrawal of the scheme. Since, the new IRDAI Regulations did not permit such engagements which facilitated New Business through banks, Board discussed the matter in its 576 Board Meeting held on 08/06/2017 and accorded approval for closure of FSE Scheme w.e.f. 01/07/2017.
Some FSEs who did not exercise option to take up direct agency or CLIA scheme filed a Writ Petition against Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Honorable High Court gave decision in favor of LIC of India. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Honorable Supreme Court in the judgment of Writ Petition 13 of 2017 dated 19/04/2018 has upheld the closure Page 9 of 15 of LIC FSE Scheme, 2007 and dismissed the writ petition filed by Welfare Association of Contractual Executives as below:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
On perusal of the impugned order we find that the High Court has rightly appreciated the factual and legal position in the matter, particularly considering the terms and conditions of the contract. While making the last extension it was made clear that no further extension would be granted. More so, in view of the option granted for switching over and also the new policy/scheme, we find no ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition as well as special leave petitions being bereft of merit deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed."
It will not be out of context to mention here that Shri VS S Krishna also filed a Writ petition with Madras High Court for permanent post in LIC.
The relevant excerpts of decision of the Madras High Court dated 23/05/2024 in Writ Petition No. 18088 of 2022 are as below:
On perusal of the counter filed by the respondents and on hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, revealed that Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Statutory Corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. It has rules for appointment to permanent posts for all cadres an instructions for engagement of temporary staff in Class III and Class IV cadres. The permanent employees are governed by the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations. 1960. Th temporary employees are governed by the LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff instructions, 1993. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is not covered under ar these Regulations / Instructions."
B) As regards current second appeal preferred by the appellant, he is informed as below.
As regards query no.(1), he has been informed many number of times that FSEs come under the purview of LIC of India Financial Services Executive Scheme 2007 and that the overall insurance business is governed by the Insurance Act, 1938 Page 10 of 15 Regarding query no.(2) the appellant is once again informed that the information sought by him is in nature of seeking clarification/confirmation/ interpretation, which does not come under the purview of RTI Act, 2005 and that the CPIO can furnish only the information available as a record, already maintained with the office of Public Authority.
Regarding query no.(8) the appellant is again informed that he is only seeking further clarifications on the information already furnished to him, which does not come under the purview of information as defined under section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.
He is again informed that the information sought as regards retention period for records of contractually engaged FSEs is not available in record form with this office of Public Authority However, in the spirit of RTI Act, 2005 he is once again informed that the records of FSEs are available with the concerned Divisional Offices.
As regards query no.(10) the appellant was provided with the parameters of new business for the 6th year in CPIOs response dated 28/06/2024. As the appellant was not satisfied with the reply, he was also provided with the circular regarding the parameters of business of 6th year at the first appeal stage.
The Minimum Business parameters for 6th year continuation were already informed to the Appellant by Salem Divisional Office vide letter dated 22/06/2017 on his continuation in 6th year of FSE.
As per the approval of the Board, the FSE scheme was continued for 6th year with the same terms and conditions of LIC of India (Financial Services Executives) Scheme 2007 C) Further we hereby humbly submit to Honorable CIC that the appellant is habitual filing RTI applications/1 Appeals/2nd Appeals on the above subject matter i e. his termination as FSE at various offices of LIC (CO/ZO/DO). Apart from RTI applications he has filed complaints against LIC of India on the same subject matter in CPGRAM. Court of law etc. He has filed 4 writ petitions in High Court of Madras and 2 out of the 4 a already dismissed by the Hon'ble Court.
Page 11 of 15Despite of this fact we have been responding to all his communications at all forums we would like to draw attention of Respected Commissioner towards decision by him in one of the CIC cases of Shri VS S Krishna: Second Appeal C/LICOI/A/2023/629045 dated 13/06/2022 Mr. VSS Krishna VS Central Office L Commission upon a perusal of records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished CPIO as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of the RTI.
Hence, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in these matters.
Be that as it may, the Commission finds it pertinent to mention that more than 26 cases of the same Appellant have already been heard and disposed of by another bench of this Commission. It is also worth noting that 8 Second Appeals was listed on 08.03.2024, for hearing which shows that the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications with different public authority. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizen. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising her Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission further finds it expedient to note the Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications for the purpose of redressing his service-related grievance through instrumentality of RTI which is likely to clog the RTI channels and thus, depriving the ordinary citizen to exercise their right to information In this case, the Information Commissioner had also cautioned the appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner.
In the light of the above, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to dismiss summarily the second appeal dated 27/09/2024 filed by Shri VS S Krishna and issue suitable instructions deterring the appellant from wasting valuable time of this Public Authority." Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ms. Madhavi Tari, Secretary (RTI), LIC of India, Mumbai Division present through video conference.Page 12 of 15
6. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on respondent while filing the same in CIC on 27.09.2024 is not available on record. On a query, the Respondent confirms non-service.
7. The Appellant restricted his arguments to the fact that neither satisfactory reply on above mentioned points has been given to him so far nor hard copies of written submission dated 21.08.2025 was provided to him till date.
8. The Respondent, during the hearing, at the outset stated that Appellant
- an ex-contractual worker of the replying Respondent- is a habitual RTI applicant who is nursing a grievance against non-renewal of his contract. He uses the RTI platform to vent his personal vendetta by flooding the Respondent Public Authority with numerous RTI applications and now demanding an amount of Rs. 5 crore as 'reparation' directly from the Respondent to stop him from filing further RTI applications and Second Appeals/Complaints, as brought out by Respondent through written submission in CIC file No. CIC/LICOI/A/2024/623364 which also is listed for hearing today. Appellant admitted having demanded reparation stating that he was wrongly denied his continuation in the Respondent Public Authority.
9. Respondent further submitted that a point-wise reply along with relevant information has already been to the Appellant. Further, upon receipt of hearing notice from the Commission, a revised point-wise reply was furnished to the Appellant vide written submission dated 21.08.2025. She prayed to the Commission to prohibit the Appellant from misusing the RTI Act mechanism, because he is filing numerous RTI applications, First Appeal & Second Appeal.
10. In response to Appellant's contention during hearing, the Respondent volunteered to provide hard copy of their written submission dated 21.08.2025 to the Appellant through speed-post and email.
Decision:
11. The Commission upon the perusal of records finds no infirmity in the replies furnished by the CPIO earlier and now vide written submission dated 21.08.2025 as the same were found to be in consonance with the provisions of Page 13 of 15 the RTI Act. Hence, intervention of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.
12. Nonetheless, as per hearing proceedings, the Respondent is directed to provide a certified true copy of their written submission dated 21.08.2025 along with enclosures, free of cost to the Appellant through speed-post and email and a proof of compliance be uploaded through the link given in the CIC's hearing notice. This direction should be complied with within one week of the date of receipt of this order.
13. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that 28 cases of the Appellant against same and/or different Public Authorities on similar issues have already been heard and disposed of by different benches of the Commission. It is also worth noting that seven cases including the present case are listed for today's hearing. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in his RTI Applications apparently to pressure the Public Authority rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The approach of the Appellant is against the spirit of RTI Act and clogging the valuable time and resources of the Public Authorities. The Respondent has pleaded for remedy against repeated and humongous number of RTI applications and Appeals by the same person. In this regard, the Commission invites attention of the parties towards a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in a case titled Biplab Kumar Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA 3116 of 2022 wherein it was held as under
and leave it to the respondent to choose a remedy.
"...It appears from the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner's ploy is to collect information under the Right to Information Act and thereafter use the said information to harass the private parties as well as the Municipality for unlawful gain. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be plainly harrassive and mala fide.
The averments and allegations made in the writ petition remains unsubstantiated. The writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and liable to be dismissed with costs.Page 14 of 15
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty-five thousand) only to be paid by the petitioner in the office of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within September 30, 2022..."
14. In view of the above-said observations, the Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future instead of making it a tool to create undue pressure on the Public Authority. As regards Respondent's request for action against the Appellant, it is clarified that the Commission has no power to initiate any action against Appellant under the RTI Act for such malpractices, hence, the Respondent is at liberty to approach appropriate Court of Law for addressing the issue.
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 Copy To:
The FAA, Life Insurance Corporation of India Central Office, 'Yogakshema' Jeevan Bima Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Page 15 of 15 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)