Central Information Commission
Ram Kumar Sharma vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 29 October, 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 ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2019/105903
Ram Kumar Sharma ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation ... ितवादी/Respondent
Of India, Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27-09-2018 FA : 04-12-2018 SA : 12-02-2019
CPIO : 31-10-2018 FAO : 08-01-2019 Hearing: 27-10-2020
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Mumbai seeking following information:-
1. "Rules pertaining to printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes for LIC agents (club members). Amount of money sanctioned to LIC agents (club members) for printing purposes.
Quantity of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes supplied by the LIC to its agents (club members).
2. Year/Branch-wise details of facilities provided to LIC agents (club members) of Delhi Division II for printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes from 2015 onwards.
3. Reasons for not releasing payments to the LIC agents (club members) of Delhi Division II for printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes from 2015 onwards.
4. Expected date of providing printing facilities to LIC agents (club members) of Delhi Division II.
Etc."
Page 1 of 42. The CPIO responded on 31-10-2018. The appellant filed the first appeal dated 04-12-2018 which was disposed of by the first appellate authority on 08-01- 2019. Thereafter, he filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and also to direct him to provide the sought for information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant, Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. S K Das, CPIO participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The appellant stated that the respondent should be directed to provide him the rule position regarding printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes for LIC agents (club members). He further submitted that the respondent should be directed to clarify as to why no payment has been released to the LIC agents (club members) of Delhi Division II for printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes from 2015 onwards.
5. On point no.1, the respondent contended that the action was taken as per the circular dated 30-01-2018. On point no. 2, he submitted that no such information is available. On rest of the points, he further submitted that the appellant is seeking clarification which requires interpretation of documents/rules and therefore, the CPIO cannot be expected to do so.
Decision:
6. This Commission directs the respondent to supply a copy of the rules/circular governing printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes for LIC agents (club members) to the appellant, within a period of 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. However, the queries raised by the appellant regarding reasons for not releasing payment towards printing of letterheads, visiting cards & envelopes for LIC agents (club members), expected date of providing printing facilities etc. are presumptive in nature which requires analyses and interpretation of documents/rules. Therefore, this sort of queries seeking clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of 'information' u/Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, the Commission refers 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 Page 2 of 4 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 is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, 2011 (8) SCC 497, 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."
Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) v. The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:-
"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information.Page 3 of 4
Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."
7. In light of the factual matrix of the instant appeal and the aforesaid case- laws, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the CPIO is not obliged to provide any clarification to the appellant. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date:27-10-2020
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Nodal
CPIO, RTI Cell, Delhi Do-II, Scope Minar,
North Tower, 9th Floor, Laxmi Nagar
District Centre, Delhi-110092.
2. Ram Kumar Sharma
Page 4 of 4