Central Information Commission
Manish Kumar Agarwal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 18 December, 2018
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/UIICL/A/2017/163408-BJ
Mr. Manish Kumar Agarwal
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
United India Insurance Company Limited
Arif Chambers 1
Kapoorthala Bagh Complex, Aliganj
Lucknow - 226020
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018
Date of Decision : 18.12.2018
Date of RTI application 05.06.2017
CPIO's response 04.07.2017
Date of the First Appeal 05.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 31.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.09.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the number of insurance policies procured by Rajinder Pipes Ltd., in the year 1985 from the UII with information regarding the effective date of policy, period of policy, whether policy was renewed, Sum Insured under each policy, nature of assets incurred under the Policy and Premium Paid, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.07.2017 stated that the information sought was very old which they were not able to trace out. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 31.07.2017 concurred with the CPIOs response. HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Prateek Raj, CPIO/Asst. Mgr. through VC;Page 1 of 4
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Rupesh Kadam, Network Engineer NIC studio at Navi Mumbai (Belapur) confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent reiterated its submissions. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 10.12.2018, wherein it was stated that the information sought was more than 23 years old and that their software platform was changed two times in the last 10 years which had made it very difficult for them to trace such old records. It was further explained that they had already spent numerous man hours and diverted the resources of the public authority to provide as much information available with them. In this context, the decision of the Apex Court in CBSE and Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497 was also cited.
Furthermore, the Respondent also referred to the provision of Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 to deny the information to the Appellant. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:Page 2 of 4
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal LPA No. 501/2009 dated 12.01.2010 had held as under:
"101. Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act requires a fiduciary not to gain an advantage of his position. Section 88 applies to a trustee, executor, partner, agent, director of a company, legal advisor or other persons bound in fiduciary capacity. Kinds of persons bound by fiduciary character are enumerated in Mr. M. Gandhi's book on "Equity, Trusts and Specific Relief" (2nd ed., Eastern Book Company) .............19 Insurance Company"
The Commission also referred to the decisions of Apex Court in the matter of CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein while explaining the term "Fiduciary Relationship"
it had been held as under:
22. ".... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, Page 3 of 4 an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer"
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
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: 18.12.2018
Page 4 of 4