Central Information Commission
Satyajit Burman vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 17 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/C/2023/137708
Satyajit Burman ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC DIGITAL BUILDING, C-10,
G-BLOCK BKC, BANDRA-EAST,
MUMBAI - 400051 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.12.2024
Date of Decision : 16.12.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.04.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.07.2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.09.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 03-02-2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"Q No 1: Under which Section LIC Helpdesk officer Smt Chitra Hariharan ask me to remove the face mask dt. 06.04.2022 violating Pandemic act.Page 1 of 14
Query No.2. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar ask relative of policy holder to provide the pan card to provide the LIC cheque issued details of surrendered policy.
Query No. 3. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar noted pan card details without concern of pan card holder on 07.04.22.
Query No. 4. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar kept the personal details of policy numbers & cheque number of LIC consumer on 07.04.22.
Query No. 5: Provide name of RTI Public Information Officer & 1st appellant officer in 88M LIC Mulund office.
Query No. 6: Provide appointment of PIO & 1st appellate officer.
Query No. 7: Provide cctv footage dt 6, 7, 8 April 2022.
Query No. 8: Provide date of sign board of PIO & Appellant officer was installed inside 88M LIC Mulund office."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
"Reply 1: On 06.04.2022, as you had put on a face mask while enquiring at LIC help desk of Branch 88M, your voice was not audible enough to Mrs. Chitra Hariharan, the attending staff at the LIC Help Desk, and hence she requested you to lower your mask and speak so as to understand your query and cater to your needs accordingly. The attending staff has not violated any of the orders issued in the Pandemic period as the Maharashtra State Government has revoked its order of compulsion of face mask with effect from 2nd April 2022 (copy of the order already provided to you).
Reply 2, 3 & 4: You were enquiring about the financial details of 7 policies belonging to one Ms. Swati Haripada Saha. You had not brought a proper application or authority letter from the policyholder authorizing you to get the policy details from the branch office. In the absence of the authority letter from the policy holder, it was not found legitimate to share the details of policies to someone other than the policyholder himself/herself, and hence you were requested to prove your identity and your relationship with the policyholder. You informed that you were Page 2 of 14 husband of the policyholder. It was in this context, that you were requested to provide a photo ID, and you immediately obliged by producing your PAN Card, the details of which were noted down by Mrs Anjali Ketkar, the HOD of PS Dept of Branch 88M, on the paper submitted by you, wherein the policy numbers of Ms Swati Haripada Saha were mentioned. The Circular ref: CO/CRM/914/23, dated 20.08.2013, regarding Submission of additional requirements out of proof of identity/residence at the point of delivering different policy services has already been provided to you. As per the circular, Identity of the policy holder/persons seeking policy details on behalf of the policy holder, is to be established while providing services, especially in absence of Authority letter of the policy holder.
Reply 5: Mr. Deepak Koppikar (Branch Manager) of the Branch 88M is the CAPIO i.e. deemed CPIO, Mrs. Vaishali Kulkarni (Manager/CRM/Mumbai Division-2) is CPIO of Mumbai Division-2, and Mr. Vishnu Dev D. (Divisional Manager-In Charge/Mumbai Division-2) is the 1st Appellate Officer of Mumbai Division-2.
Reply 6: The Manager/CRM of the division office is the CPIO of the Office of Public authority, by the virtue of designation, handling applications received under RTI Act, 2005. You are informed that the CPIO, who is also Grievance Redressal Officer of Mumbai Divisional Office II is available on every working Monday from 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m, in the Divisional Office. The Divisional Manager in-Charge of the Divisional Office is the First Appellate Authority by virtue of his designation. The appointment of Divisional Manager in-charge can be sought on prior written request for meeting him.
Reply 7: You were informed at the application stage that the information sought regarding provision of CCTV footage for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022 of the premises of Branch 88M is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it bears third party information of persons visiting the branch office and has no reference to the larger public interest justifying disclosure of such information.
It is pertinent to note that the CCTV is a surveillance mechanism deployed by the offices of the respondent organization to man and secure the spaces/premises of the offices. The CCTV footage is often scanned to know what or how an event happened or to check the veracity of an event. You have sought entire CCTV footage of the premises of Branch 88M, for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022, without Page 3 of 14 mentioning the specific time or reason for provision of footage. You have not established any larger public interest, in the matter as no serious crime or offence has taken place on the mentioned 3 dates in the premises of Branch 88M. The CPIO/FAA has never denied the fact that the Appellant has visited Branch 88M on the mentioned 3 dates.
The CCTV footage on any day contains information regarding the movement of Officials of the office of the respondent organization and persons visiting the premises of the concerned office. The disclosure of CCTV footage of the entire three days, as sought by the Appellant, may compromise the safety and security of the officials and persons visiting the branch premises. As such, the information was exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party ie officials and persons visiting premises of Branch 88 M. Reply 8: Names of CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division II are displayed at each branch office, on the officials taking charge of the designated posts. As the process of taking charge by the Manager/CRM and Division-in-charge was in process, at that time, you were informed that the names of CPIO/FAA will be changed upon taking charge of the aforementioned officials. At present, all the Branches have the names of the CPIO/FAA displayed in the premises. The names of current CPIO and First Appellate Authority is displayed in the premises of Branch 88M, of the respondent organization."
Being dissatisfied, the complainant failed to file a First Appeal. The FAA order is not on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 04.12.2024 has been filed by Ms. Manisha Pednekar, Manager (CRM)/CPIO, Mumbai Division is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"...RTI Application and the then CPIO's Reply:
Shri Satyajit Burman had preferred RTI Application dated 08.04.2022 seeking information about the rules followed during COVID Pandemic period by the LIC Helpdesk officials in Branch office 88M of the respondent organization. The then CPIO provided information as follows:Page 4 of 14
Query No. 1. Under which Section LIC Helpdesk officer Smt. Chitra Hariharan ask me to remove the face mask dt.06.04.2022 violating Pandemic act. Reply: You had visited our branch, 88M's enquiry counter on 06/4/2022, and were standing opposite to the transparent plastic sheet fixed at the enquiry counter. As you had put on a face mask while enquiring, your voice was not audible enough to the attending staff Mrs. Chitra Hariharan and hence she requested you to lower your mask and speak so as to understand your query and cater to your needs accordingly. Incidentally, the Maharashtra State Government has revoked its order of compulsion of face mask with effect from 2nd April 2022.
xxx Reply to Query no. 2, 3 & 4. You were enquiring about the financial details of 7 policies belonging to one Ms. Swati Haripada Saha. You had not brought a proper application or authority letter from the policyholder authorizing you to get the policy details from the branch office. In the absence of the authority letter from the policy holder, it was not found legitimate to share the details of policies to someone other than the policyholder himself/herself, and hence you were requested to prove your identity and your relationship with the policyholder. You informed that you were the husband of the policyholder. It was in this context, you were requested to provide a photo ID, and you immediately obliged by producing your PAN Card, the details of which were noted down by the HOD of PS Dept Mrs. Anjali Ketkar on paper submitted by you wherein the policy numbers of Ms. Swati Haripada Saha were mentioned.
Query No. 5: Provide name of RTI Public Information Officer & 1" appellant officer in 88M LIC Mulund office.
Reply: Mr. Deepak Koppikar (Branch Manager) of the Branch 88M is the CAPIO and deemed CPIO, Mrs. Vaishali Kulkarni (Manager/CRM/Mumbai Division-2) is CPIO of Mumbai Division-2, Mr. Vishnu Dev D (Divisional Manager-Incharge/Mumbai Division-2) is the 1" Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division-2.
Query No. 6: Provide appointment of PIO & 1" appellate officer. Reply: Manager/CRM of the division office is the CPIO by the virtue of designation. Please note that CPIO is available on every Monday from 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Divisional Manager In-Charge of the Divisional Office is the First Appellate Authority by virtue of designation.
Query No. 7: Provide cctv footage dt 6,7,8 April 2022. Reply: The information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of Chapter II of RTI Act, 2005 as it bears third party information of persons visiting the Page 5 of 14 branch office on the mentioned dates of 6th, 7th and 8th April, 2022 and has no reference to the larger public interest justifying disclosure of such information.
Query No. 8: Provide date of sign board of PIO & Appellant officer was installed inside 88M LIC, Mulund office.
Reply; Names of CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division II are displayed at each branch office on the officials taking charge of the designated posts. As the process of taking charge by CPIO is in process, the names will be changed soon.
First Appeal:
Being dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply, Shri Satyadev Burman preferred Appeal bearing Registration no. LUCWZ/A/P/22/00046, dated 13/06/2022 which was received on 20.06.2022.
The FAA revisited the queries and the appeal dated 13.06.2022 was disposed of, upholding the decision of the CPIO/MDO-II, vide Appellate order dated 07/07/2022.
Second Appeal:
Grounds in the second Appeal
1. First appellate authority Mr. Vishnudev disposed the first appeal by sending the mail dated 07.07.2022 without calling the hearing not do they have sent hearing notice to the appellant. FAA has violated the RTI act 2005 and CIC Order (File NOCIC/SA/A/2014/000254).
Our submission - The RTI Appellant is mentioning that the FAA did not call him for hearing and no hearing notice was sent to him. However, the appellant has never explicitly asked for personal hearing from the FAA in his appeal, in the first place. Further, point-wise reply was provided to the Appellant, at the application stage. As such, the FAA, on revisiting the queries, was satisfied with the CPIO's decision and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
The Appellant has quoted the CIC order in CIC case no. CIC/SA/A/2014/000254-Shri R.K.Jain Vs. Department of Legal affairs, Government of India. It is important to note that in the aforementioned CIC case, the Appellant had expressly sought for personal hearing from FAA which was denied by FAA. So, the CIC set aside the order of First appellate Authority.
It is pertinent to reproduce relevant excerpt of the CIC decision of another CIC case which was referred to, in above said CIC case that "Although the Right to Information (RTI) Act or the rules made there under do not prescribe in detail the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority in dealing with first appeals, by convention, the Appellate Authority should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. Therefore, we would Page 6 of 14 like the appellate Authority to bear this in mind and, wherever any such request is made, to afford an opportunity of hearing to that Appellant." As such, in the instant case, the Appellant never expressly sought personal hearing with FAA and the question of FAA violating provisions of RTI Act, 2005 does not arise.
2. PIO Mr. Deepak Vijay Koppikar receiving the copy of RTI from me on 08.04.20222 and uploaded the same RTI Application online to RTI portal Dated 11.04.2022. On line RTI registration number LIC WZ/R/P/22/00163. Our Submission The Appellant has not asked for any information. He is merely stating the procedure followed by the CAPIO le the Branch Manager 88M on receiving his RTI application. However, the Appellant is informed that the Branch Manager can only forward the RTI application received physically, to the CPIO in MDO II office, who registers the application in RTI module, as mandated by the CIC office. The CPIO has appropriately registered the application in the RTI module,
3. Deemed PIO LIC Branch Manager CPIO Manager P&IR failed to provide the information under RTI act 2005 pertains to point number 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 and denied information pertains to point number 7 stating that information exempted under section 8.1.J of RTI act 2005 no large public interest (3) third party information. 1"
appellate authority upheld the reply of PIO.
Our query wise submission is as under -
Q No 1: Under which Section LIC Helpdesk officer Smt Chitra Hariharan ask me to remove the face mask dt.06.04.2022 violating Pandemic act. On 06.04.2022, as the Appellant had put on a face mask while enquiring at LIC nelp desk oт Branch 88M, his voice was not audible enough to Mrs Chitra Hariharan, the attending staff at the LIC Help Desk, and hence she requested the Appellant to lower his mask and speak so as to understand his query and cater to his needs accordingly. The attending staff has not violated any of the orders issued in the Pandemic period as the Maharashtra State Government has revoked its order of compulsion of face mask with effect from 2nd April 2022 (copy of the order enclosed herewith).
Query No.2. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar ask relative of policy holder to provide the pan card to provide the LIC cheque issued details of surrendered policy.
Query No. 3. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar noted pan card details without concern of pan card holder on 07.04.22. Query No. 4. Under which section LIC officer Mrs Anjali Prashant Ketkar kept the personal details of policy numbers & cheque number of LIC consumer on 07.04.22. The Appellant was enquiring about the financial details of 7 policies belonging to one Ms. Swati Haripada Saha. The Appellant had not brought a proper application or authority letter from the policyholder authorizing him to get the policy details Page 7 of 14 from the branch office. In the absence of the authority letter from the policy holder, it was not found legitimate to share the details of policies to someone other than the policyholder himself/herself, and hence the Appellant was requested to prove his identity and his relationship with the policyholder. The Appellant informed that he was the husband of the policyholder. It was in this context, that the Appellant was requested to provide a photo ID, and the Appellant immediately obliged by producing his PAN Card, the details of which were noted down by Mrs. Anjali Ketkar, the HOD of PS Dept of Branch 88M, on paper submitted by the Appellant, wherein the policy numbers of Ms. Swati Haripada Saha were mentioned, The Circular ref: CO/CRM/914/23, dated 20.08.2013, regarding Submission of additional requirements out of proof of identity/residence at the point of delivering different policy services is enclosed herewith. As per the circular, identity of the policy holder/persons seeking policy details on behalf of the policy holder, is to be established while providing services, especially in absence of Authority letter of the policy holder.
Query No. 6: Provide appointment of PIO & 1st appellate officer. The Manager/CRM of the division office is the CPIO of the Office of Public authority, by the virtue of designation, handling applications received under RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant was informed that the CPIO is available on every working Monday from 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m, in the Divisional Office. The Divisional Manager in-Charge of the Divisional Office is the First Appellate Authority by virtue of his designation.
Query No. 7: Provide cctv footage dt 6, 7, 8 April 2022.
The Appellant was informed that the information sought regarding provision of CCTV footage for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022 of the premises of Branch 88M is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it bears third party information of persons visiting the branch office and has no reference to the larger public interest justifying disclosure of such information. It is pertinent to note that the CCTV is a surveillance mechanism deployed by the offices of the respondent organization to man and secure the spaces/premises of the offices. The CCTV footage is often scanned to know what or how an event happened or to check the veracity of an event. The Appellant has sought entire CCTV footage of the premises of Branch 88M, for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022, without mentioning the specific time or reason for provision of footage.
The Appellant has also failed to establish any larger public interest, in the matter as no serious crime or offence has taken place on the mentioned 3 dates in the premises of Branch 88M. The CPIO/FAA has never denied the fact that the Appellant has visited Branch 88M on the mentioned 3 dates.Page 8 of 14
The CCTV footage on any day contains information regarding the movement of Officials of the office of the respondent organization and persons visiting the premises of the concerned office. The disclosure of CCTV footage of the entire three days, as sought by the Appellant, may compromise the safety and security of the officials and persons visiting the branch premises. As such, the information was exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party le officials and persons visiting premises of Branch 88 M. Query No. 8: Provide date of sign board of PIO & Appellant officer was installed inside 88M LIC Mulund office.
Reply: Names of CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division II are displayed at each branch office, on the officials taking charge of the designated posts. As the process of taking charge by the Manager/CRM and Division-in-charge was in process, at that time, the Appellant was informed that the names of CPIO/FAA will be changed upon taking charge of the aforementioned officials. At present, all the Branches have the names of the CPIO/FAA displayed in the premises.
The Appellant has also preferred complaint to the higher office of the respondent organization in the matter and the Branch Manager has given explanation to MDO II Divisional Office on each and every point raised by the Appellant (copy enclosed herewith) and has accordingly responded to the same queries in his RTI application. Also, all the 7 policies of Ms. Swati Haripada Saha, wife of the Appellant stand surrendered and Surrender Value payment of all 7 policies has also been released. No grievance is pending in the matter.
Compliance to CIC decision dated 28.06.2023:
As per the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by Shri Uday Mahurkar, Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, free of cost, within the period of 21 days from receipt of the order, this Office of Public Authority has uploaded the compliance reply, vide letter dated 17.07.2023 on 17.07.2023 vide Diary No. 634787 and the reply letter was sent by Speed Post to the Appellant on 18.07.2023.
The Appellant, vide compliance letter dated 17.07.2023 was informed as follows:
In compliance to CIC decision, on re-examining the RTI application, you are informed as under:
Q No 1: Under which Section LIC Helpdesk officer Smt Chitra Hariharan ask me to remove the face mask dt.06.04.2022 violating Pandemic act. Reply: On 06.04.2022, as you had put on a face mask while enquiring at LIC help desk of Branch 88M, your voice was not audible enough to Mrs. Chitra Hariharan, Page 9 of 14 the attending staff at the LIC Help Desk, and hence she requested you to lower your mask and speak, so as to understand your query and cater to your needs accordingly. The attending staff has not violated any of the orders issued in the Pandemic period as the Maharashtra State Government has revoked its order of compulsion of face mask with effect from 2nd April 2022 (copy of the order already provided to you).
Page 6 -
Query No.2. Under which section LIC officer Mrs. Anjali Prashant Ketkar ask relative of policy holder to provide the pan card to provide the LIC cheque issued details of surrendered policy.
Query No. 3. Under which section LIC officer Mrs. Anjali Prashant Ketkar noted pan card details without concern of pan card holder on 07.04.22. Query No. 4. Under which section LIC officer Mrs. Anjali Prashant Ketkar kept the personal details of policy numbers & cheque number of LIC consumer on 07.04.22. Reply (to Query 2, 3 & 4): You were enquiring about the financial details of 7 policies belonging to one Ms. Swati Haripada Saha. You had not brought a proper application or authority letter from the policyholder authorizing you to get the policy details from the branch office, In the absence of the authority letter from the policy holder, it was not found legitimate to share the details of policies to someone other than the policyholder himself/herself, and hence you were requested to prove your identity and your relationship with the policyholder. You informed that you were husband of the policyholder. It was in this context, that you were requested to provide a photo ID, and you immediately obliged by producing your PAN Card, the details of which were noted down by Mrs. Anjali Ketkar, the HOD of PS Dept of Branch 88M, on the paper submitted by you, wherein the policy numbers of Ms. Swati Haripada Saha were mentioned. The Circular ref: CO/CRM/914/23, dated 20.08.2013, regarding Submission of additional requirements out of proof of identity/residence at the point of delivering different policy services has already been provided to you. As per the circular, identity of the policy holder/persons seeking policy details on behalf of the policy holder, is to be established while providing services, especially in absence of Authority letter of the policy holder.
Query No. 5: Provide name of RTI Public Information Officer & 1" appellant officer in 88M LIC Mulund office.
Reply: Mr. Deepak Koppikar (Branch Manager) of the Branch 88M is the CAPIO and deemed CPIO, Mrs. Vaishali Kulkarni (Manager/CRM/Mumbai Division-2) is CPIO of Mumbai Division-2, and Mr. Vishnu Dev D (Divisional Manager In- Charge/Mumbai Division-2) is the 1" Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division-2. Query No. 6: Provide appointment of PIO & 1" appellate officer.Page 10 of 14
Reply: The Manager/CRM of the division office is the CPIO of the Office of Public authority, by the virtue of designation, handling applications received under RTI Act, 2005. You are informed that the CPIO, who is also Grievance Redressal Officer of Mumbai Divisional Office II is available on every working Monday from 3.30 p.m. to 4.30 pm, in the Divisional Office.
The Divisional Manager in-Charge of the Divisional Office is the First Appellate Authority by virtue of his designation. The appointment of Divisional Manager in- charge can be sought on prior written request for meeting him. Query No. 7: Provide cctv footage dt 6, 7, 8 April 2022. Reply: You were informed at the application stage that the information sought regarding provision of CCTV footage for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022 of the premises of Branch 88M is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 as it bears third party information of persons visiting the branch office and has no reference to the larger public interest justifying disclosure of such information. It is pertinent to note that the CCTV is a surveillance mechanism deployed by the offices of the respondent organization to man and secure the spaces/premises of the offices. The CCTV footage is often scanned to know what or how an event happened or to check the veracity of an event. You have sought entire CCTV footage of the premises of Branch 88M, for 6th, 7th & 8th April 2022, without mentioning the specific time or reason for provision of footage. You have not established any larger public interest, in the matter as no serious crime or offence has taken place on the mentioned 3 dates in the premises of Branch 88M. The CPIO/FAA has never denied the fact that the Appellant has visited Branch 88M on the mentioned 3 dates.
The CCTV footage on any day contains information regarding the movement of Officials of the office of the respondent organization and persons visiting the premises of the concerned office. The disclosure of CCTV footage of the entire three days, as sought by the Appellant, may compromise the safety and security of the officials and persons visiting the branch premises. As such, the information was exempt from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as it is personal information of third party le officials and persons visiting premises of Branch 88M. Query No. 8: Provide date of sign board of PIO & Appellant officer was installed inside 88M LIC Mulund office.
Reply: Names of CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Mumbai Division II are displayed at each branch office, on the officials taking charge of the designated posts. As the process of taking charge by the Manager/CRM and Division-in-charge was in process, at that time, you were informed that the names of CPIO/FAA will be changed upon taking charge of the aforementioned officials. At present, all the Branches have the names of the CPIO/FAA displayed in the premises. The names of Page 11 of 14 current CPIO and First Appellate Authority is displayed in the premises of Branch 88M, of the respondent organization.
From above, it is clearly seen that the Appellant has been repeatedly provided with appropriate information at all stages - Application, First Appeal, Second Appeal and in compliance to CIC's decision dated 28.06.2023, as per the information available with the Office of Public Authority and as per provisions of RTI Act. It is re-iterated this Office of Public Authority has uploaded the compliance reply, vide letter dated 17.07.2023 on 17.07.2023 vide Diary No. 634787 on CIC's link and the reply letter was sent by Speed Post to the Appellant on 18.07.2023. There is no delay in giving compliance as it is given within 21 days of receipt of CIC's decision dated 28.06.2023.
It is observed that the Appellant is unnecessarily dragging the issue since April 2022 despite getting information and clarifications to his queries, from this Office of Public Authority. The CPIO can only provide information as available with the Office of Public Authority. No further information remains to be provided in the matter.
The Branch Office 88M as well as the Mumbai Divisional Office II has not received any complaint from the Appellant or his wife (who is the policyholder) since 17.07.2023 in the matter. Also, all the 7 policies of Ms. Swati Haripada Saha, wife of the Appellant stand surrendered and Surrender Value payment of all 7 policies has also been released. No grievance is pending in the matter."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Ms. Manisha Pednekar, Manager (CRM)/CPIO, Mumbai Division along with Mr. Deepak Koppikar, CPIO present through video-conference.
The Complainant contended that he was not satisfied with the information furnished to him against this RTI application.
Respondent by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of her averred written submission stated that reply had already been provided to the complainant earlier and his Second Appeal on this RTI application was also disposed of by the predecessor bench of CIC. In compliance with the same, additional information was also furnished to the complainant as quoted in the preceding paragraphs. No additional information is left at their end.Page 12 of 14
Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the records and in the light of the submissions tendered by the Respondent observes that issue under consideration has already been adjudicated by the predecessor bench vide case File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2022/145274 decided on 28.06.2023 with the following observations-
"...Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and complete information to the Appellant, free of cost, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission."
The ratio of the above said order holds good for the instant case as well. The Commission has no power to review its own order on the same subject under the RTI Act.
Further, since it is a complaint filed under Section 18(2) the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record and submissions of the Respondent the Commission finds that an appropriate and timely reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 17.07.2023 and again on 04.12.2024 which is self-explanatory. No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO in this case. However, Complainant is at liberty to file a non-compliance application with the CIC.Page 13 of 14
Intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA LIC DIGITAL BUILDING, C-10, G- BLOCK BKC, BANDRA-EAST, MUMBAI - 400051 Page 14 of 14 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)