Central Information Commission
Binay Kumar Sinha vs Insurance Regulatory And Development ... on 29 December, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IRADA/A/2019/118040
Binay Kumar Sinha ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India
Hyderabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 31-12-2018 FA 22-02-2019 SA : 18-04-2019
CPIO : 31-01-2019 FAO : 27-03-2019 Hearing : 21-12-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, Hyderabad. The appellant seeking information on 13 points, including, inter-alia:-
(i) Did IRDAI took any steps to find out whether any other organization representing the interests of insurance agents to be nominated as a member of IAC before renominating National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India for another term. If yes, furnish the names of other organizations which were considered;
(ii) Furnish the copies of office notings prepared by the concerned department of IRDAI while recommending the names of Shri A K Tyagi, Shri H M Jain, Secretary General, National Federation of Insurance Trivandrum and Secretary General, National Federation of Page 1 of 4 Insurance Field Workers of India were selected and recommended for appointment as members of IAC, etc.
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 22.02.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority was ordered on 27.03.2019 and disposed of his first appeal. He filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant was represented through his representative Shri O P Rajodia who attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Deepak Gaidwad, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 10.12.2020 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant, during the hearing, has limit his arguments only to the point nos. 8 to 11 of his RTI application. He stated that no information has been provided to him by the respondent on point nos. 8 to 11 of his RTI application dated 31.12.2018.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 31.01.2019 and 27.03.2019, point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the appellant. The replies were seen during the hearing.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant was aggrieved that complete and correct information on point nos. 8 to 11 of the RTI application has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 31.12.2018. The Commission further observes that query of the appellant on point nos. 8 and 11 of the RTI application of the appellant is in the nature of seeking explanation/opinion/advice from the CPIO viz. "Did IRDAI took any steps to find out whether any other organization representing the interests of insurance agents to be nominated as a member of IAC before renominating National Federation of Insurance Field Workers of India for another term. If yes, furnish the names of other organizations which were considered, etc." and he has expected that the CPIO firstly Page 2 of 4 should analyze the documents and then provide information to the appellant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. The Commission further observed that the reply given by the respondent on point nos. 9 and 10 is not correct. The respondent has wrongly denied the information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to give revised reply/information to the appellant on point nos. 9 and 10 of his RTI application dated 31.12.2018 including the copies of note-sheets and/or any other relevant documents after redacting the personal information of third party, if any, viz. his place of birth, PAN number, residential address, caste, etc., within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कुमार गु ता) Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ता सच Information Commissioner (सू ना आयु त) त दनांक / Date 21.12.2020 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 3 of 4 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Insurance Regulator and Development Authority Of India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, SY. No. 115/1 Financial District, Nanakramgua Gachiowi Hyderabad-500032
2. Binay Kumar Sinha Page 4 of 4