Central Information Commission
Dr. R.K. Gupta vs Insurance Regulatory And Development ... on 29 November, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIACL/A/2017/606230/IRADA-BJ
Dr. R. K. Gupta
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Large Corporate & Brokers Office 4
Mangoe Lane, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2019
Date of Decision : 29.11.2019
Date of RTI application 01.06.2017
CPIO's response 07.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 15.08.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 07.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points, regarding the copy of the agreement with YMS Mobitech Ltd. with brand name apps required by the organization for Insurance of Mobiles along with information on persons responsible for approving the deal and passing the repair bills; number of Insurance of Mobile since the inking of the agreement; copy of repair bills of last 200 Apple Mobiles and amount claimed by YMS Mobitech Ltd. from the insurance company ever since the agreement.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 07.09.2017 provided a point wise response wherein for Points 01 and 04, it was stated that the information requested for fell under the exemption of Sec 8 (1)(d),(e)&(j) of the Right to Information Act,2005. For Points 02 and 05 were answered with the certain details. As regards Point 03, it was stated that the information was not readily available.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its letter 07.09.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.
Page 1 of 5HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Mahadeb Das, Sr. DM and Ms. Amrita Sengupta, Assistant Manager, arrived late, through VC;
Both the parties remained absent at the stipulated time fixed for the hearing, despite prior intimation. Mr. Sourav Kushwaha and Mr. Kapil, Network Engineers NIC studios of Hisar and Kolkata, respectively confirmed their absence. Subsequently after the hearing the Respondent arrived at the NIC Studio at Kolkata and tendered their unconditional apology for not reaching the venue for hearing on time. When confronted about para 8 of the notice of hearing dated 08.11.2019 which mentions that the parties concerned should reach the venue at least 30 minutes before the scheduled time, the Respondent feigned ignorance and tendered lame excuses for not being able to attend the hearing on time resulting in loss of precious time fixed for adjudication of matters by the Commission. With regard to the action taken in the matter, the Respondent again tendered their unconditional apology for the delay in responding to the RTI application due to technical glitches/ system errors with regard to the ID/ password to access RTI applications/ First Appeals. On being queried by the Commission regarding the reasons for denying information regarding the agreement with YMS Mobiles Ltd as sought in point no. 01 of the RTI application u/s 8 (1) (d), the Respondent provided a contradictory response and stated that the said company i.e., YMS Mobiles Ltd was provided Insurance Policy documents which contained the relevant terms and conditions of the policy and no such agreement as sought by the Appellant was available with them. Subsequent to the hearing, the Respondent vide email dated 26.11.2019 forwarded a copy of the said insurance policy. On being further questioned regarding the reasons why the same was not communicated by the CPIO initially, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.11.2019 wherein while explaining the factual background of the matter, it was stated that the accusation of the Appellant was not correct since they had continuously cooperated with the client providing him all the updates and the service provider also provided an offer for replacement of the set which Dr. Gupta did not revert. With respect to the delay it was stated that NIA was continuously coordinating with YMS Mobitech for the data who had to procure it from their dealers thereby causing consumption of time. Also there were some system errors with regard to ID/ Password while processing and reverting to the RTI query. While regretting for the delay it was assured that the same would not recur in future. In addition it was stated that the premium amount of Rs. 6,500/- against which the Appellant had also raised a complaint was inclusive of other benefits like anti-virus, pick and drop facilities which was communicated to the customer by the service provider at the time of the purchase of the product. Hence, it was stated that as far as the RTI reply was concerned they had provided all information as per their knowledge and provisions of the RTI Act. For the queries not replied it was stated that they felt that the same came within the purview of RTI exemptions.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observed that the CPIO/ FAA did not provide a satisfactory response to the Appellant. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various judgements on the subject matter clearly establishes that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and precise response to the information seekers. Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005 also states that where a request for disclosure of information is Page 2 of 5 rejected, the CPIO shall communicate the reasons for such rejection. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 clearly stated that the PIO acts as the Pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act. The relevant extracts of the decision are as under:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
The Commission also observed that as per the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an Appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. Neither the Respondent present during the hearing nor the CPIO responding to the RTI application, could justify their position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention to any of the provisions enshrined under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 While observing that in order to deny information under any of the exemption mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed that ".....The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
Page 3 of 5The Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission also takes a serious view of the lackadaisical/callous attitude adopted by the CPIO who has not bothered to attend the hearing despite clear instructions in notice of hearing. Thus, it was observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications and attending to the hearing before the Commission. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was a legislation enacted by the Parliament to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
Furthermore, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its important and significant decision passed by way of resolution dated 03.10.2017 declared that decisions regarding uploading of collegium's resolutions should be uploaded on website for ensuring transparency of collegium system.
" THAT the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the mater... The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system."
Moreover, vide its judgment dated 13.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 10044 OF 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 OF 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had declared the Chief Justice of India as a Public Authority as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 5DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission while cautioning the CPIO for his negligence in attending to the RTI application, directs the Respondent to provide a clear, cogent and precise point wise response to the Appellant including the terms and conditions of the policy entered into by the Respondent Public Authority with YMS Mobiles within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Respondent was also instructed to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 29.11.2019
Copy to:
1. Mr. Atul Sahay, Chairman cum Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 87, MG Road, Mumbai - 400001 (with the instruction to sensitize the officials to attend to the RTI matters and hearing before the Commission with utmost care and diligence failing which penal action will be taken against the erring officials.) Page 5 of 5