Central Information Commission
Ramachandran Nair K vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 28 March, 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/NIACL/A/2017/175958-BJ
Mr. Ramachandran Nair K
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Chief Manager
Head Officer, The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
New India Assurance Building, 87, M. G. Road
Fort, Mumbai - 400001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2019
Date of Decision : 28.03.2019
Date of RTI application 03.07.2017
CPIO's response Not on Record
Date of the First Appeal 31.07.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 04.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 14.11.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding the list of Contributory Provident Fund Optees (Non Pension Optees) as on 01.09.1997 after the lapse of the second option of pension to the employees of the Company, List of remaining CPF optees as on 31.03.2017.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 03.07.2017 (not on the record of the Commission. Mentioned in First Appeal) denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.09.2017, concurred with the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ramachandran Nair K through VC;
Respondent: Mr. R. N. Chakrabarty, CPIO (HQ), Mumbai through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that other public sector insurance companies had provided information on these aspects whereas the New India Page 1 of 3 Assurance Co. Ltd. denied information citing Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. In its reply, the Respondent maintained the response of the CPIO / FAA as also its written submission. It was categorically stated that the data from 1997 to 2017 was not available and that collection and collating such data would entail huge diversion of its scarce human resources. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 22.03.2018, wherein it was stated that the information desired by the Appellant involved third party personal information of employees which was held in a fiduciary relationship with the Public Authority. In support of their contention, a reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012. It was also stated that no such list was readily available in material form by them and as per the decision of the Apex Court in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors) information can be provided only in the form in which it exists. Moreover, the information sought required compilation of the data which would cause unwarranted and unnecessary diversion of their scarce resources, hence Section 7 (9) was applicable to the matter. However, in view of the recently held PF Trust Election dated 12.02.2019 a data of the CPF Optees and Pension Optees was created, the details of which were provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.03.2019. In view of the above, it was prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
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:Page 2 of 3
"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 able 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 both the parties, 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: 28.03.2019
Page 3 of 3