Central Information Commission
Sachin Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 4 November, 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/2018/123891-BJ
Mr. Sachin Kumar
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO & Chief (RTI)
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Central Office, 5th Floor, Yogakshema
Jeevan Bima Marg, P B No. 19953
Mumbai - 400021
2. CPIO and Manager (CRM),
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash,
Nehru Colony, haridwar Road,
Dehradun- 248001
3. CPIO,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Arcot Road,
Vellore- 632004
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01.11.2019
Date of Decision : 04.11.2019
Date of RTI application 10.01.2018
24.01CPIO's response 23.01.2018
Date of the First Appeal 01.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 05.02.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 16.04.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points in relation to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary L.I.C. Employees Association vs LIC and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6850/ 2009; list of all temporary Page 1 of 10 employees of Devband Branch of LIC of India for the period from 2000 to 2010; year in which the process for CGIT commenced and year in which it ended as per the directions of the LIC Central office, Mumbai in compliance with the directions of the Apex Court in the aforementioned matter and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.01.2018 informed the Appellant that information on points 01 to 04 and point 06 pertained to the Dehradun Divisional Office/ Vellore Divisional Office respectively and a letter dated 16.01.2018 was already issued to the Appellant in this respect. With regard to the query in point no. 05, it was stated that the same did not fall within the purview of the definition of information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.02.2018 while concurring with the response of the CPIO dated 31.01.2018 directed the CPIO to provide another copy of the aforesaid letter which contained a reply on points 01 to 04 pertaining to the Dehradun Divisional Office.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sachin Kumar along with Mr. Adil Hasan through VC; Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Das, Manager (CRM), Dehradun, Mr. Jagdish Pangtey, Manager (P&IR), Dehradun, Mr. P. S. Ameen, Assistant Secretary, Mumbai and Mr. Roshith, Manager (CRM), Vellore through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information was not provided by the CPIO (Dehradun) for points 01 to 04, CPIO (Mumbai) for point 05 and CPIO (Vellore) for point 06. In its reply, the Respondent (Dehradun) reiterated the response of the CPIO / FAA as also their written submissions and stated that information on point No. 01 was not available with them since old records pertaining to recruitment of temporary employees were destroyed as per the extant guidelines in the year 2012 and the document of weeding out of record was provided to the Appellant. With regard to points
02 to 04, the Respondent conveyed that in accordance with the CO guidelines and the directions of the Apex Court, no candidate was found eligible for permanent employment within the stipulated period. Hence, a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant. The Appellant contested the aforementioned submission of the Respondent and stated that the document relating to weeding out of record was not received by him. The Respondent (Mumbai) stated that since at the time of replying to the RTI application, the process for recruitment based on the directions of the Apex Court was underway, a consolidated response could not be provided to the Appellant at that stage. However, the details were now collated and updated information regarding the entire process of implementation of the Supreme Court order dated 18.03.2015 in the matter of CGIT Award dated 18.06.2011 in ID 27/1991 was available on the Corporation's website. The Respondent (Vellore) also stated that with reference to point 06 of the RTI application, the details of persons appointed in the year 2017 were now furnished to the Appellant with other relevant details of the period of training. The Respondent also stated that such information was now available on the Corporation's website. The Appellant however submitted that he could not access the information on the website hence he desired a hardcopy of the same, which the Respondent (Mumbai and Vellore) agreed to provide. During the hearing the Commission referred to its earlier decision in Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180859 dated 05.04.2019 and queried from the Respondent (Mumbai) regarding suo motu disclosure of action taken in compliance with the directions of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6950/ Page 2 of 10 2009. The Respondent (Mumbai) submitted that they were in the process of complying with the decision of the Commission.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Dehradun) dated 21.10.2019 wherein it was stated that the information provided by the CPIO, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Dehradun dated 31.01.2018 was well within the prescribed time limit of the RTI Act which was not returned undelivered till date. With regard to point no (1) of the RTI application, it was stated that the Branch Office, Deoband, had destroyed all records of temporary/ Daily wagers up to the year 2012 on 24.01.2017. As regards point No. 02 in relation to Civil Appeal No. 6950 / 2009, the CGIT process had been completed from 07.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 in their Division as per the instructions of Central Office, Mumbai. As no appointment was done in their Division, hence the process had been closed in their Division. Regarding point No. 03 and 04, it was stated that the query did not fall within the definition of the term "information" u/ s 2 (f) of RTI Act. However, keeping in view the real essence of the Act, they had followed all procedure as per orders of Honorable Supreme Court and no temporary employee was found eligible to be permanent employee within specific period. With regard to point No. 05 and point No. 06 it was stated that they had informed the Appellant that such information was available in the Central Office, Mumbai. Thus, it was stated that they had provided the point-wise information in connection with all 6 questions as per the provisions laid down under RTI Act- 2005 and denied the information wherever it was necessary to do so.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Vellore) dated 25.10.2019 wherein it was stated that they could not provide any information in January, 2018 as the implementation of the CGIT award was in process and in a preliminary stage. Subsequently, the information got consolidated and was made available on the website of the LIC. The LIC Divisional Office, Vellore implemented the Supreme Court order dated 18.03.2015 in the matter of CGIT award dated 18.06.2001 in the Industrial dispute 27/1991. The details of the CGIT Award implementation had been uploaded on Corporation's website www.licindia.in (https://www.licindia.in/Bottom-Links/RTI/RTI- New Item No. XIV. Other disclosures/ CGIT Award & connected matter). As far as the information pertaining to Vellore division was concerned, it was stated that the information related to the implementation in Vellore division was ready and now available as a record in their division. Thereafter a point wise response on the queries pertaining to them was provided by the Respondent wherein it was informed that Appointment letters were issued to 31 (Thirty One) eligible CGIT candidates on 28.09.2017. It was also conveyed that two Weeks Induction Training from 09.10.2017 was imparted to 31 (Thirty One) Probationary Assistants who Reported to Training in response to their Appointment letters dated 28.09.2017. The list of the candidates attending the Induction Training for Two weeks from 09.10.2017 was also provided. The Respondent also stated that the details of selection procedure was available in public domain (on Corporation's website www.licindia.in http://www.licindia.in/getattachment/Bottom-Links/RTI/XIV-Other- Disclsoures/Implementation-of-CGIT-Award-(3).pdf.aspx.
Moreover, the Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (Mumbai) dated 25.10.2019 wherein it was stated that the applicant had preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority at Dehradun Divisional Office against questions (1) to (6).The applicant did not forward/ prefer an appeal to Central Office Mumbai against Point No. 05, which had been responded by CPIO at Central Office, Mumbai. Regarding point No. 02, the LIC has implemented Supreme Court's order across all divisional Offices. The Competent Page 3 of 10 authority for recruitment of Class III/IV employees was the Senior Divisional Manager of the respective Divisional Offices. The entire process of implementation of the Supreme Court order dated 18.03.2015 in the matter of CGIT Award dated 18.06.2011 in ID 27/1991 was available on the Corporation's website www.licindia.in>>RTI centre<< RTI New>> Other Disclosure>>. CGIT Award & Connected matters. List of workmen provisionally eligible during the implementation of CGIT Award 27 of 91 & SC order of 18.03.2015 were also available on LIC site. However, the information sought in a classified manner of division wise absorption, was not compiled at Central Office level as the respective Senior Divisional Manager was the recruiting authority. In support of their contention, the Respondent also referred to the decision of the Commission in K Lall V/S Office of the Registrar of Companies F. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 dated 12th April, 2007 to submit that unless information was exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would also mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre- determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."
At the outset, the Commission observed that consequent upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 dated 18.03.2015 directing the Respondent Public Authority (LIC) to frame a scheme for regularization of those employees who were granted ad-hoc appointment for 85 days at intervals from time to time, a large number of such applications were being received in the Commission with the intended objective to seek information from the Public Authority certifying that the Appellant/Complainant had worked for specified number of days on a temporary/contractual/casual basis to prove their bonafide for securing a regular employment with the LIC. Furthermore, the Curative Petition No. 23 of 2017, etc filed by the LIC of India were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017. Therefore, the Commission had sympathetically viewed all such applications to maintain consistency in deciding these matters.
A reference was drawn to the judgments of the Commission in similar such matters as under:
Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/122416-BJ dated 31.10.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2018/118767-BJ dated 11.09.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2018/114673-BJ dated 09.07.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2018/109657-BJ dated 02.07.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2018/107593-BJ dated 26.06.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2018/106592-BJ dated 19.06.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185368-BJ dated 13.06.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183844-BJ dated 21.05.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/174390-BJ dated 07.05.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185684-BJ dated 03.05.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180886-BJ dated 29.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/181513-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/181506-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180745-BJ dated 15.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180160-BJ dated 10.04.2019 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180859-BJ dated 05.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/175999-BJ dated 27.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169667-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169666-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169665-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169664-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169663-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169662-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169661-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/170797-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/184201-BJ dated 19.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/158303-BJ dated 12.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/162967-BJ dated 08.02.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/168986-BJ dated 15.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/605776-BJ dated 15.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/168353-BJ dated 11.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/605770-BJ 11.01.2019;
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/166034-BJ dated 27.12.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/163675-BJ dated 18.12.2018, CIC/LICI/A/2017/161740-BJ dated 06.12.2018; Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/160376-BJ dated 05.12.2018; Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/163085-BJ dated 03.12.2018 Appeal No.:-
Page 4 of 10CIC/LICOI/A/2017/156631-BJ Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/156631-BJ dated 20.11.2018 Appeal No. :- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155196-BJ, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155792-BJ dated 02.11.2018 Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/151092-BJ dated 11.10.2018 Appeal No.:-
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147409-BJ dated 09.10.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/148984-BJ dated 04.10.2018 Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/132918-BJ dated 01.10.2018, Appeal No.:-
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147277-BJ dated 25.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140899-BJ dated 20.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/150027-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/143439-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/142389-BJ dated 10.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140895-BJ dated 06.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/137464-BJ dated 24.08.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/136203-BJ dated 21.08.2018 Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/133847-BJ dated 01.08.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124555-BJ dated 25.07.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901-BJ dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128260 dated 29.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128668 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124896 dated 21.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901 dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/126015 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/123124, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017 /126015, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122820-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122821-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/131705-BJ +CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124443-BJ +CIC/LICOI /A/2017/154962 dated 05.06.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124400-BJ Dated 05.06.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/121923-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122904-BJ + CIC/ LICOI/A/2017/122906-BJ dated 25.05.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/ 2017/119849-BJ dated 18.05.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/114808-BJ + CIC/LICOI/A/2017/130667-BJ dated 24.04.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110899-
BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110879-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155095-BJ dated 13.04.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/187460-BJ dated 10.01.2018; etc. etc. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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 the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."Page 5 of 10
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."
However, considering the large number of Second Appeals/ Complaints received by the Commission regarding granting of permanent status to temporary employees as per the directives of the Apex Court, the Commission in several other matters had previously directed to suo motu disclose in the public domain, the details of persons who had been granted/ not granted appointment and the reasons thereof in compliance with the aforementioned decision for the ease and convenience of all the stakeholders. In this context, the Commission had observed that voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Page 6 of 10 Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 "The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest"
must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
Page 7 of 10The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
As regards the instant matter, 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 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."Page 8 of 10
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent (Dehradun) to provide a certified hard copy of the document pertaining to the weeding out of records with reference to point no. 01 of the RTI application. The Commission also instructs the Respondent (Mumbai and Vellore) to provide a certified hard copy of the information on points 05 and 06 of the RTI application to the Appellant. The aforementioned directions should be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent (Mumbai) to scrupulously comply with the directions in CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180859 dated 05.04.2019 and upload the updated information of Pan India details of selected/ non-selected candidates in compliance with the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6950/2009 dated 18.03.2015 on its website with reasons thereof within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in the larger public interest.
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: 04.11.2019
Page 9 of 10
Copy to:
1- The Chairman, L.I.C. of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.Page 10 of 10