Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrprasant Kumar Pattnaik vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 22 December, 2014

                   Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New 
                                Delhi­110066
                             website­cic.gov.in

                  Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000156
  
Appellant                           :    Shri Prashant Kumar 
Patnaik, Angul
Public Authority:         LIC of India, Cuttak
Date of Hearing           :    15 December 2014 
Date of Decision          :    22 December 2014    
Present          :
Appellant                                   : 
                           Present through VC from Angul
Respondent                               :              Shri G 
                           N Behera, Manager (Sales)/CPIO, Shri 
                           S C Padhy, Administrative Officer 
                           (CRM Dept) through VC from Cuttack

                                   ORDER

1. The appellant, Shri Prashant Kumar Patnaik, submitted RTI  application   dated   August   29,   2013   before   the   Central   Public  Information   Officer   (CPIO),   LIC   of   India,   Angul;   seeking  information on whether his letter dated 19.11.2011 received by  LIC,   Angul   was   treated   as   appeal   as   per   Cl.   20   of   Agency  Regulation, 1972 etc., through a total of 2 points. 

2. Vide   reply   dated   October   1,   2013,   the   CPIO   denied   the  information on point no. 1 on the ground of non availability  of   the   information   at   Angul   Branch   and   also   denied   the  information   on   point   no.   2   on   the   ground   that   information  sought for was not 'information' in terms of section 2(f) of  the  RTI  Act,   2005.   Not   satisfied   with   the   CPIO's   reply,  the  appellant   filed   an   appeal   dated   23   October   2013   before   the  first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that the CPIO did not  want   to   give   information   communicated   with   the   Branch   vide  letter   dated   26.11.2011   in   this   regard.   Vide   order   dated   18  November 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO's decision.    

3.   Dissatisfied   with   the   response   of   the   public   authority,  the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.

4. The   matter   was   heard   by   the   Commission.   The   appellant  submitted that on the respondent branch orally informed him on  2.10.2011 about termination of agency on the ground of Minimum  Business Guarantee (MBG).  After the termination of his agency  CIC/MP/A/2014/000156 the   appellant   filed   an   appeal   before   the   Sr.   Divisional  Manager,   Life   Insurance   Corporation   of   India,   Cuttack   to  reinstate   his   Agency   on   19.11.2011.   The   appellant   submitted  that he filed the RTI application to know what action had been  taken   on   his   letter   dated   19.11.2011   but   the   respondents  denied   that   having   received   any   documents   for   renewal   of  license.   The   respondents   submitted   that   the   letter   dated  19.11.2011   of   the   appellant   was   for   reinstatement   of   agency  and not for renewal of license. The respondents added that the  appellant   had   to   make   application   before   the   FAA   for  reinstatement   of   agency  and  if   the   FAA   deemed   fit   then   only  reinstatement  was given. They further  stated that the letter  had been received and was available in the Divisional Office.  The FAA had sent a point wise reply to the appellant.

5.               The   CPIO   had   in   his   reply   mentioned   that   the  appellant's letter  dated 19.11.2011 had not been received  by  him   but   later   they   added   that   it   was   available   in   the  Divisional Office.  The CPIO will explain his position within  10   days.     The   Commission   holds   that   the   respondents   had  provided clear point wise reply to the RTI application at the  first appeal stage.  The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)  Information Commissioner  Authenticated true copy:

(T.K. Mohapatra) Dy. Secretary & Dy. Registrar Ph. No. 011­26105027 Copy to :­ Central Public Information Officer First Appellate Authority (under RTI Act) (under RTI Act) LIC of India LIC of India Sr Divisioanl Manager, Jeevan Prakash,Divisional Office,  Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash,  CIC/MP/A/2014/000156 CRM Department,Nuapatna, Nuapatana, Cuttak­753001 Cuttak­753001  Shri Prasant Kuamr Patnaik S/o Shri Late Joginath Patnaik,  Similipara, Angul­759122 CIC/MP/A/2014/000156