Central Information Commission
Sarojini Devi vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 April, 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/2017/176933-BJ
Ms. Sarojini Devi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO and Chief (RTI), Life Insurance Corporation of India
RTI Department, Central Office, 5th Floor
West Wing, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg
P. O. Box No. 19953
Mumbai - 400021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 04.04.2019
Date of Decision : 05.04.2019
Date of RTI application 21.08.2017
CPIO's response 12.09.2017
Date of the First Appeal 22.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 12.10.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice of LIC in view of the Supreme Court Judgement which had held in 2014 that no Government Department/ Government Corporation will apply Public Premises Act (PP Act) to protected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under trial by LIC Estate Officer under PP Act which had been discharged/ cancelled by LIC and premises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme Court Judgement, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 12.09.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.10.2017 provided further clarifications to the Appellant.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 3
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mrs. Naveen Koul, Chief (RTI)/CPIO and Mr. Sunandan, Dy. Secretary (RTI) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Prashant, Network Engineer NIC studio at Belapur confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 03.04.2019 wherein she prayed for adjournment of one month since her counsel had fallen sick and could not attend the hearing on the stipulated date and time. The Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA as also her written response. The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 25.03.2019 wherein while providing a point wise response to the RTI queries, it was stated that with regard to point no 01, the CPIO stated that the information sought did not exist. In support of their contention, a reference was made to the decision of the Commission in CIC/AA/A/2006/00032 and 00034 dated 22.06.2007 and CIC/PB/A/2007/00426 dated 19.06.2007. As regards point no. 02, it was stated that the queries were too vague and no specific information sought could be identified from the query. However, an attempt was made to analyse the query once again at the Appellate Stage and a response was provided. Regarding point no. 03, it was conveyed that there were many Estate Officers PAN India and the information sought was scattered across the country hence the same was not available at the Central Office. In this context the FAA also quoted the judgement of the Apex Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay. With regard to point no. 04, it was stated that the Appellant was seeking information based on her own assumptions. On point no. 05, it was conveyed that at the outset the query was not specific. The CPIO however informed that the judgments of any Courts were not held by their Public Authority. In support of their contention, the Respondent relied on the decision of the Commission in CIC/SM/A/2011/001437/SG/15163 (Mr. Veer Sain vs. RBI).
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 Page 2 of 3 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:
"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."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. 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: 05.04.2019
Page 3 of 3