Central Information Commission
Adarsh Sahu vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 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/LICOI/A/2018/125328-BJ
Mr. Adarsh Sahu
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
16/275 M. G. Marg, Divisional office
Kanpur - 208001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.11.2019
Date of Decision : 14.11.2019
Date of RTI application 19.01.2018
CPIO's response 16.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response 17.03.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the complete details of authorized amount entitled by his late brother Shri Uttasarg Sahu along with the details of amount which had already been paid to him, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.02.2018, provided a suitable response to the Appellant wherein it was stated that in Office Service Department, the file of Late Uttasarg Sahu, was not available in place. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 17.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response stating that the available and existing information had already been shared with the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 4
Appellant: Mr. Adarsh Sahu through VC;
Respondent: Mrs. Ramakanti, CPIO/Manager (CRM/PS/SSS) and Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Manager (Office Servicing)/ DPIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the claims of his deceased brother remained unsettled by the LIC despite his repeated attempts to secure the same. In its reply, the Respondent while reiterating the response of the CPIO / FAA as also its written submission stated that as per extant guidelines the records in respect of the claims of the employees once settled stand destroyed within a period of 05 years from the date of settlement. It was conjectured that the concerned employee had withdrawn his dues and therefore the records were not available. It was further stated that as per the information held by them his PF contribution was also settled with him. Due to non-availability of any files, they were not able to submit any further. Nonetheless, the Appellant contested that being the brother of the deceased employee, he had the right to know the status of settlement of dues in respect of his brother.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 05.11.2019 wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that there was no lapse on their part as far as communication of information was concerned. Therefore, it was prayed to the Commission to graciously be pleased to reject the complaint as it would tantamount to wastage of the Commission's valuable time and issue a suitable order as deemed fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 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."Page 2 of 4
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:
"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."
With regard to non-availability of records in the Respondent Public Authority, the Commission also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 30/10/2013 [W.P.(C)3381/2011- Ajay Kumar Gulati v/s Pushpender Nath Pandey and anr.] wherein it was inter-alia observed as under: -
"9. When the writ petition came for hearing on 28.01.2013, the following direction was issued to respondent No. 2:
"In view of the above, respondent no. 2 shall file an affidavit stating therein clearly as to whether relevant record has been destroyed and if that is so, whether information with regard to the same has been entered in the Records Destroyed Register. If such a register is maintained, the relevant extract from the said Registrar will accompany the affidavit."
10. In order to bring the whole controversy to an end, the respondent, vide order dated 01.07.2013 was directed to file affidavit of the concerned General Manager responding to the information sought by the petitioner vide application dated 30.10.2008 in respect of items No.2 to 16. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner filed vide application dated 30.10.2008 could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the Page 3 of 4 information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO (LIC), Kanpur, to furnish the updated status of the information held by them and with regard to the destruction of records as stated by the Respondent, an affidavit be issued to the Appellant stating the factual position as per the extant guidelines.
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: 14.11.2019
Page 4 of 4