Central Information Commission
Suresh Chand vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 20 November, 2016
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000979
Appellant : Shri Suresh Chand, Dehradun
Public Authority : Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dehradun
Date of Hearing : October 5, 2016
Date of Decision : October 27, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Represented by Shri Anuj Sharma, Advocate- through VC
Respondents : Shri SK Pathak, Manager (CRM) and Ms Upasana
Chandhiok, Manager (Estate) - through VC
RTI application : 30.07.2015
CPIO's reply : 19.08.2015
First appeal : 07.09.2015
FAA's order : 28.09.2015
Second appeal : 12.04.2016
ORDER
1. Shri Suresh Chand, the appellant, sought information on three points pertaining to the SCR bearing no. 59/41, Rampur Mandi Marg, Chakrata Road, Dehradun (currently known as New Connaught Place, Chakrata Road, Dehradun) asking whether it was recorded in the name of Shri Makkhan Lal, the appellant's father, as tenant thereof, and if the answer was in the affirmative, he wanted information about the time since when his father's name was recorded in the LIC records as tenant of the aforementioned SCR, etc.
2. The CPIO provided a point-wise response to the appellant stating that as the matter was sub-judice, they could not provide information relating to the same u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that no criminal or civil suit was pending in the matter and the information sought by him does not impede the process of investigation and that he was in the lawful possession of SCR bearing no. 59/41. The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision stating that the matter of SCR 59/41, New Connaught Place, Bharat Estate, Dehradun, was sub-judice and pending before the court of the Learned Estate Officer vide case number D-49/2003 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; and therefore, as any intervention at this juncture might tantamount to disadvantage for one party, the same could not be provided u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the points made in his first appeal and stating that the public authority should be directed to provide the information sought.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted information regarding a building in New Connaught Place, Dehradun. He wanted to know whether his father's name had been recorded as a tenant in the respondent insurance company's records. The appellant contended that after his father's demise, the occupancy devolved upon him.
4. The respondents submitted that LIC was formed after the consolidation of around 200- 300 private insurance companies in 1956. The records pertaining to the building in question had been transferred by the Bharat Estate Company to the LIC on such consolidation. They had already provided their response on the first point accordingly. However, information sought on the remaining two points was denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the related matter was sub- judice. They informed the Commission that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant who was defending his claim before the court of the Learned Estate Officer.
5. Upon hearing both the parties, the Commission holds that even though the related-matter was sub-judice, information pertaining to a dispute before a court of law cannot be denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission, in K.M. Talera v. Office of the Cantonment Board, CIC/AT/A/2006/00193, dated 18.09.2006, held that, "A perusal of the averments of the appellant and the respondents makes it clear that there has been a serious error by the respondents in assuming that information in respect of sub-judice matters need not be disclosed. The RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice matters. The only exemption in sub-judice matter is regarding what has been expressly forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal and what may constitute contempt of Court: Section 8(1)(b)." The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide information on whether his father was the tenant of the property in question, to the appellant, within 20 days of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority LIC of India LIC of India Divisional Office, Dehradun Divisional Office, Dehradun Jeevan Prakash, Nehru Colony Jeevan Prakash, Nehru Colony Haridwar Road, Dehradun-248 001 Haridwar Road, Dehradun-248 001 Shri Suresh Chand S/o Late Shri Makkhan Lal Ish Mohan Saklani Block Court Compound, Dehradun