Central Information Commission
Basanta Kumar Mohanty vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 21 May, 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/2018/100629-BJ
Mr. Basanta Kumar Mohanty
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Manager (CRM)
LIC of India, CRM Department
Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash
Nuapatna, P. B. No. - 36
Cuttack - 753001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.05.2019
Date of Decision : 21.05.2019
Date of RTI application 02.08.2017
CPIO's response 16.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 01.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 22.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 03.01.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified and legible photocopies of his C.R for the calendar year from 1985-1999 and 2006-2008 with seal and signature of the reporting and reviewing officers.
The CPIO vide its reply dated 16/08/2017 provided 31 pages of information to the Appellant but informed him that CRs for the year 2006, 2007& 2008 were not available with them. Dissatisfied with the reply the Appellant approached the FAA seeking copies of CRs for the period 2006- 2008.The FAA vide its order dated 22/09/17 replied that a thorough search was again made to trace out the CRs of the Applicant for the years 2006,2007&2008 in the related departments / offices but nothing could be traced.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Basanta Kumar Mohanty through VC;Page 1 of 4
Respondent: Mr. Kabi Prasad Mallick, Manager (CRM)/CPIO and Mr. Prados Chandra Mohanty, AO (CRM) through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the ACRs relating to the period 2006 to 2008 were not released to him. In its reply, the Respondent maintained the submissions of the CPIO / FAA. It was further explained that the ACR records of the Appellant got misplaced in transit and that after thorough search, they were still not traceable. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 wherein while re-iterating the reply of the CPIO/ FAA, it was stated that the Appellant was an ex-employee of LIC of India and retired as Higher Grade Assistant on 31.10.2018 and was a habitual RTI applicant also motivating fellow employees to apply for unnecessary information under RTI during his service tenure thus wasting manpower of a public sector organization. When the CPIO/ FAA had admitted that the information/ papers were missing and not held by their office, the scope of further advancement under the RTI platform ends there. Hence it was prayed to dismiss the Appeal and close the case.
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, Page 2 of 4 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."
In this context, the Commission also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 30/10/2013 [W.P.(C)3381/2011- Ajay Kumar Gulati v/s Pushpender Nath Pandey and anr.] wherein it was inter-alia observed as under: -
"9. When the writ petition came for hearing on 28.01.2013, the following direction was issued to respondent No. 2:
"In view of the above, respondent no. 2 shall file an affidavit stating therein clearly as to whether relevant record has been destroyed and if that is so, whether information with regard to the same has been entered in the Records Destroyed Register. If such a register is maintained, the relevant extract from the said Registrar will accompany the affidavit."
10. In order to bring the whole controversy to an end, the respondent, vide order dated 01.07.2013 was directed to file affidavit of the concerned General Manager responding to the information sought by the petitioner vide application dated 30.10.2008 in respect of items No.2 to 16. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner filed vide application dated 30.10.2008 could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner."
Page 3 of 4DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission advised the Respondent to re-ascertain the availability of records failing which an affidavit be furnished to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order explaining the factual status 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: 21.05.2019
Page 4 of 4