Central Information Commission
A Naga Vamsi Krishna vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 10 April, 2026
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979
A Naga Vamsi Krishna ......अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: LIC ....प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2026
Date of Decision : 09.04.2026
Information Commissioner : Shri Surendra Singh Meena
Relevant Facts Emerging from Appeal:
RTI application : 25.11.2024
PIO replied on : 04.12.2024
First Appeal filed on : 21.12.2024
First Appeal Order on : 17.01.2025
2nd Appeal received on : 21.02.2025
CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 1 of 8
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:
"1) Sri Eddnapudi. Mastan Rao working as a LIC agent in your well Established Organization Having the LIC Agent code of 00255 671 from 31.10.1992 to till date. Please confirm and please provide related photo copies.
2) I need the details of Sri E. Mastan Rao and Sri Eddnapudi.
Anuradha (Agency code: 01692 67H) done LIC different policies from 2015 to 2024, Please provide the photo copy of policy numbers only remaining details please mask it and share the photo copies as per RTI Act 2005.
3) What is the exact number of LIC policies done by Sri E. Mastan Rao and Smt. Eddnapudi. Anuradha did please provide the data unnecessary details please mask and provide photo copy.
4) Please provide Sri E. Mastan Lao and Smt. Eddnapudi. Anuradha (Agency applications, Renewal applications) photo copies as per RTI Act 2005.
5) Sri Eddnapudi. Mastan Rao Garu submitted pan card photo copy also please provide.
6) Any Agent working in LIC of India along with some other government service proved his cheating in these circumstances (with ERC termination or without ERC termination occur) please explain and provide the guidelines photocopies."
The CPIO replied vide letter dated 04.12.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"With reference to your application received dt. 27.11.2024 under RTI Act, 2005, regarding details of Agency of Sri E.Mastan Rao Code No. CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 2 of 8 255-67H, and Smt. Eddnapudi Anuradha Agency code No. 1692 67H, we would like to inform you that the disclosure of information is exempted under Section 8 (1)(j) and 8(1)(d) of RTI Act 2005."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.12.2024. The FAA vide order dated 17.01.2025 stated as under:-
"The appellant has submitted in his appeal on the RTI Reply Dt.4.12.2024 and in his Appeal, Appellant has passed extraneous remarks about the CPIO and on the organisation. We have received complaint from the Appellant submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer, LIC of India and necessary action is contemplated as per LIC of India(Agency) Regulations 2017.
The Appellant is requesting for copies of the Pan Card, Policies done under their Agencies and Agency Applications submitted by Sri Eddanapudi Mastan Rao and Smt. Eddanapudi Anuradha. The requested information is third party information. Earlier also the Appellant has submitted RTI Application seeking certain information about Sri Eddanapudi Mastan Rao. Office has taken note of the complaints submitted by the Appellant to CVO and we are following procedure prescribed under LIC of India Agency Regulations 2017.
In query number 6 of his RTL Application Dt.25.11.2024, Appellant is seeking the opinion of Public Information Officer and hence cannot be provided. CPIO or Appellate Authority can provide information available with them and cannot opine on the rules.
The decision of CPIO is upheld. Requested information is denied under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(J), 8(1)(h) and 2(f) of Right to Information Act, 2005.CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 3 of 8
Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides for preferring second Appeal to the Central Information Commission within 90 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Please note that LIC of India is an all India organisation and State Information Commission has no purview in respect of RTI matters relating to LIC of India."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The appellant was present through video conference.
The respondent Mr. K. Babu, Manager, was present through video conference.
The appellant inter alia submitted that he has sought record/documents related to Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao, who is a public servant and also working in LIC as an agent since 1992, but no action has been taken against him by the competent authority. The appellant further submitted that wife of Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao is also an agent in LIC. The appellant also stated that no record/documents related Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao working as an agent has been provided by the respondent.
The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the appellant has sought personal information of Mr. Eddnapudi Mastan Rao (third party), hence denied u/s 8 (1) (d) & (j) of the RTI Act.
A written submission dated 06.04.2026 of the respondent is stated as under:-
"The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.11.2024 seeking information regarding:CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 4 of 8
Agency details of Sri. E.Mastan Rao, policy and business details, Allegations of dual employment, internal actions and correspondence. The CPIO, vide reply dated 04.12.2024, denied certain queries under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant preferred a First Appeal dated 21.12.2024, which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority on 17.01.2025, upholding the CPIO's reply.
The Respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. There is no malafide intention or deliberate denial of information.
The information sought by the Appellant pertains to Third Party Personal and service related details, Agency /business data of LIC, Internal correspondence and administrative actions and Clarifications, explanations and opinions.
Exemption under Section 8(1) (1):
The requested information relates to third party personal information, including employment and agency details. Disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, and in larger public interest has been established.
Exemption under Section under section 8(1)(d):
The details relating to LIC agency business, policy data and performance are commercially sensitive in nature. Disclosure would adversely affect the competitive and fiduciary interests of LIC.
Queries not covered under Section 2(f):
Several queries raised by the Appellant are in the nature of seeking explanations, justifications and opinions. These do not fall within the definition of Information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 5 of 8
Without prejudice to the exemptions claimed it is submitted that, Preliminary verification was under taken by the competent authority. The matter was referred to the District Collector, State Government of Andhra Pradesh for verification of employment status. Explanation was called for from the concerned individual. The matter involves service conditions and administrative jurisdiction of the A.P. State Government Revenue Department concerned. Any enquiry, suspension, show cause notice, or disciplinary action falls under service matters of AP state Government.
The Respondent has examined the RTI application diligently and applied exemptions as per law. There is no suppression or concealment of information.
The First Appellate Authority has examined all aspects of the case and upheld the CPIO's reply.
The agency of Sri. E. Mastan Rao, code no 25567H, was terminated with forfeiture of Renewal Commission, under Regulation, 16 (1)(C) & 16(e) of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 with effect from 10.04.2025.
The details of earnings of Sri. E.Mastan Rao, from the financial years 1992-1993 to 2001-2002 were furnished to The Collector and Dist. Magistrate of Baptla, A.P. on 14.07.2025.
In this connection, we wish to reiterate that LIC Agents are governed by the provisions of LIC of India (Agents) Regulations, 2017 and not by the provisions of LIC of India (staff) Rules, 1960, as he is not an employee of LIC.
The same was informed to Dr.A. Naga Vamsi Krishna vide letter dated 12.09.2025.CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 6 of 8
It is further submitted that the Agency pertaining to Ms. E.Anuradha (Code No 169267H) wife of Sri. E.Mastan rao, was terminated on 01.04.2015 i.e. prior to the receipt of RTI application."
When queried by the Commission how the number of policies done by the agent and his identity card and other related documents, as sought on point nos. 1 to 4, can be denied u/s 8 (1) (d) and (j) of the RTI Act, the respondent could not submit proper justification regarding the same. The respondent during hearing submitted that he will provide available information sought on the above said points, to the appellant, in their revised reply.
Decision:
In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply to the appellant, within three weeks after receipt of this order. With this direction, the appeal is disposed.
Sd (Surendra Singh Meena) (सुरेंद्र ससिंह मीना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनां क/Date: 09.04.2026 Authenticated true copy Ramesh Babu Krishnan (रमेश बाबू कृष्णन) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26105027 CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 7 of 8 Addresses of the parties:
1. A Naga Vamsi Krishna
2. The CPIO Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Kennedy Road, P.B. No. 24, Machilipatnam - 521001 CIC/LICOI/A/2025/106979 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)