Central Information Commission
Mr.S K Anand A M vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 14 January, 2010
Central Information Commission
Room No.296, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi
110066
Telefax:01126180532 & 01126107254 websitecic.gov.in
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000134
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000135
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000136
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000138
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000141
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000156
Appellant : Shri S. K. Anand, New Delhi
Public Authority : The Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., New Delhi
(through Shri C.K. Gola, Regional
Manager, R.O.1/PIO;
Shri P.K. Jha, Deputy General
Manager/CPIOH.O.; &
Shri V.V. Mohlla, Manager, H.O.)
Date of Hearing : 14/01/2010
Date of Decision : 14/01/2010
Facts:-
The appellant Shri S.K. Anand put in seven RTI applications, all applications are dated 17/10/2008, to the CPIO of the above mentioned public authority. All the cases that have come before the Commission in Second Appeal were heard today.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000134: (RTI applications numbering 8&9)
2. The RTI applications numbering 8&9 were taken up today. Vide these applications, the appellant has sought the following information: (8): "1. Complete details of Vigilance Case No.NR/CDA/124/2006, Dt.01/05/2006. Vigilance Officer Enquiry Report & their recommendations thereon by the CVO Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Head Office, New Delhi & with supporting documents and correspondence, approval & noting drafting thereof. Case No. NR/CDA/124/2006." (9): "1. Complete file of Vigilance Case No.NR/CDA/124/2006, Dated 01/05/2006 of vigilance officer & his findings and Documents Procured in the course of his Investigations. Witnessed called for whether office Staff or/any other witnessed & their statements."
3. The matter came up for hearing today i.e. 14/01/2010. The appellant is present. The public authority is represented by the officers mentioned above who emphasized that since vigilance proceedings are still in progress, a copy of the CVO's Report could not be provided to the appellant. They also stated that the Department has yet not received a copy of the inquiry report and, therefore, also they are unable to provide a copy of the same to the appellant. The appellant emphatically stated that the inquiry has been completed and the CVO's Report has already been examined by the Inquiry Officer and, therefore, there should be no hindrance in providing him with a copy of the document asked for.
4. Shri P.K. Jha, DGM/CPIO, H.O. was present before the Commission on behalf of Shri S.K. Chanana, GM, H.O., Appellate Authority in this case. Shri Jha informed that he would ascertain from the Inquiry Officer if the inquiry has been completed and obtain clearance from him to release a copy of the CVO's Report to the appellant.
Decision
5. It is understood that the fact finding investigation report by the internal vigilance officer has been examined by the Inquiry Officer during the course of the enquiry which is since completed. Judgment by the Inquiry Officer is reserved. Copy of the CVO's Report is still in the possession of the Inquiry Officer.
6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is directed to make available a copy of the CVO's Report to the appellant after obtaining the same from the Inquiry Officer. He may also be provided with a list of witnesses and their statements.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000135 (RTI application No.10)
7. In respect of RTI application No.10 submitted by the appellant, he desires to have the following information:-
"Complete details of:
1. Application of Agency Licence No. 712/4334 of Mrs. Seema Arora attached with Shri Rajneesh Kapoor, Development Officer of CBO-7(215503) Karampura Branch, New Delhi under D.O. 18, Janakpuri, New Delhi; Her application, Renewals, Premium etc."
8. The CPIO had already provided part information to the appellant, he has stated that previous records have been destroyed and, therefore, they were unable to provide additional information. The appellant stated that since the information sought pertained to one of the charges levied against the appellant in the ongoing vigilance inquiry, therefore, the information would be in the possession of the Inquiry Officer/public authority and would not have been destroyed.
9. The representatives of the public authority then claimed exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act even if the third party gave its consent for disclosure of the information to the appellant.
Decision
10. It is observed that this position was not taken by the CPIO or the first Appellate Authority previously, and they have changed their stand, only after fresh arguments by the appellant regarding the availability of the information was put forward by the appellant.
11. The Commission does not see any merit in the fresh arguments presented by the public authority which has changed its stand now at the hearing as the information sought only pertains to one agency licence in the name of Mrs. Seema Arora. The Commission does not agree that making this information available to the appellant will compromise the commercial confidence and reveal trade secrets the disclosure of which would harm their competitive position.
12. The Commission agrees with the views expressed by the appellant and orders:-
(i) that the rules/guidelines for the destruction of different categories of records of the public authority may be provided to the Commission and to the appellant; &
(ii) where information pertains to the third party, action will be taken as prescribed u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000136 (RTI application No.7)
13. Vide this RTI application, the appellant has made a plea for obtaining the attendance sheets of Class III and Class IV employees of Karampura Branch for three days, namely, 1st , 2nd and 5th March, 2001.
14. The representatives of the public authority stated that these were old records and had since been destroyed and, therefore, it is not possible to provide the required information to the appellant.
Decision
15. The Commission directs that the public authority put in a special effort to trace these records. They may also provide the Commission and the appellant with a copy of the relevant guidelines pertaining to preservation/destruction of the files pertaining to this category. If, in fact, these attendance sheets have been destroyed as per existing guidelines, an affidavit may be provided to this effect to the Commission.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000138 (RTI application No.4)
16. In this RTI application, the appellant has asked for the following information: "1. The Procedural compliance of the Oriental Insurance Co. for clearance of Close Proximity Case of Motor Underwriting, Issuance of Motor C/Note & their Underwriting."
17. The representatives of the public authority agreed to meet this requirement to the appellant for providing information as per this application and agreed to give him a copy of the relevant circular. The appellant was satisfied.
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000141
18. In this RTI application, the appellant has asked for the following information: "Motor Cover Note Book No.417, containing Leaf No. 010401 to 010425 with complete underwriting Dockets of All the Pages; their date of Issue the C/Note & their underwriting date respectively; issued by C.B.O.7 (215503) Karampura Branch, New Delhi, under D.O. 18, Janakpuri, New Delhi."
19. In response to this RTI application, the representatives of the public authority expressed their inability to provide the information asked for since it was old and untraceable. In response, the appellant pointed out that the public authority maintains its record through computerization and that a soft copy of the information asked for/ a part thereof would be available with the public authority in soft form.
Decision
20. The commission directs the public authority to ascertain from the concerned Department whether this information and data has been computerized. If the answer is in the affirmative, the same may be provided to the appellant. If not, the CPIO may give an affidavit that the said information has been destroyed as per the existing guidelines in this regard.
Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000156 (RTI application No.6):
21. The appellant has asked for the following information: "1. Complete Details of Third Party Claim File No.TP/1335, MACT Suit No.290/2001. Titled Naresh Kumar, Issapur Vs. Pardeep Kumar Issapur & Oriental Insurance, D.O. 18, Janakpuri, New Delhi Duly Paid in 2004 & their Investigation conducted by office (D.O. No.18, Janakpuri, New Delhi)."
Decision
22. In response to this request, the CPIO informed that he has already made available to the appellant a complete photocopy of the said file. The appellant, however, desired to inspect the original file. This was agreed to by the public authority who will intimate the date and time of inspection to the appellant.
23. In all his applications, the appellant has complained that he was asked to pay an amount of Rs.4,905/ as fees for receiving copies of the information that he had sought in his 10 RTI applications dated 17/10/2008 which amount he had deposited on 17/11/2008. The appellant complained that this amount was not as per the fees prescribed.
24. The Commission pointed out that the Appellate Authority had overruled the CPIO and had ordered full refund of this amount to the appellant. Action directed to be taken by the public authority in all the cases decided upon above may be done within three weeks of the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/ (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Information Commissioner (DS) Authenticated true copy:
(Tarun Kumar) Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar Copy to: 1 Shri S. K. Anand, Asst. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Divisional Office-24, N-36, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri C.K. Gola, Regional Manager, R.O.1/PIO The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Regional Office:-1, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
3. Shri P.K. Jha, Deputy General Manager/CPIOH.O. &Appellate Authority, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.