Central Information Commission
Gopal Soni vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. on 16 May, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/NIACL/A/2023/618339 and CIC/NIACL/A/2023/615442
Gopal Soni .....अपीलकर्ाग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
New India Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Nehru Place,
Tonk, Jaipur - 302015 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09-05-2024
Date of Decision : 15-05-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on similar RTI Applications of the same Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30-01-2023, 31-12-2022.
CPIO replied on : 20-02-2023, 25-01-2023.
First appeal filed on : 07-03-2023, 31-01-2023.
First Appellate Authority's order : 16-03-2023, 17-02-2023.
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 11-04-2023, 24-03-2023.
CIC/NIACL/A/2023/618339
Information sought:
Page 1 of 8The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30-01-2023 seeking the following information:
"In terms of RTI act, 2005. Applicant Vs PSU non-life Insurance: - GIPSA (association of non-life PSU Insurance) and the NIACL (a member of GIPSA) a. The applicant seeks information of name designation and monthly remuneration of all employees that have altered the designation of one Amardeep S Oberoi, Manager of NIACL Jaipur with following details:-
b. The applicant seeks the information of name, designation, present monthly remuneration of all active employees with History of bribe taking within the jurisdiction of Jaipur regional office of NIACL.
c. Information of specific rules or regulations, if any, that empowers NIACL Jaipur office to issue a letter to applicant without name and address of NIACL, a PSU Insurance company's registered head office."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20-02-2023 stating as under:
"This correspondence is in reply to your above RTI Application transferred from DFS on 07/02/23. Following are the point wise reply:
a. This is to inform that the word Assistant was a typographical error informed vide correspondence dated 11-01-23. It's Alternate CPIO. Hence this matter stands clarified. Further, the information sought is exempted under sections 2(n), 8(1) d, 8(1) e and 8 (1) j of RTI Act 2005.
b. The information sought is exempted under sections 2(n). 8(1) d, 8(1) e and 8(1) j of RTI Act 2005. Hence cannot be provided.
c. Information sought is nebulous, hence can't be provided."Page 2 of 8
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07-03-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 16-03-2023, held as under:
"This correspondence is in reply to your above RTI Appeal transferred from DFS on 07/03/23 We submit the pointwise reply as per following.
First-NIACL is Government of India Undertaking Please-be informed that the Alternate CPIO NIACL JAIPUR RO is Mr. A.S. Oberoi (Manager), and the letter dated 20/02/23 was signed by him.
Second - As informed by HR Department, NIAC. JAIPUR RO, there is no bribe taking history of active employee under its jurisdiction.
Third-The information sought is not clear."
CIC/NIACL/A/2023/615442 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 31-12-2022 seeking the following information:
"I seek information of amount of public money claimed, the date of sanction of payment, the name, designation, office address of the sanctioning authority Name of authority Details of matter Public money claimed by a. Regional Office wherein NIACL employee with event no. 8-b} Mr. Harichand Jaipur NIACL tour Salary roll no. 20676 insists in dated 26/3/2008 undertaken by the then his own handwriting that my divisional manager wife is not following Hindu Ajmer to Jaipur NIACL family traditions.
b. for Single Bench Writ
Advocate V S Yadav filed stay Between 2012-2022 Mr. V. S.
Petition no. 4007/2012
order petition Advocate V S Yadav
Jaipur bench Rajasthan
Yadav filed writ petition >>>> Mr. Rishipal Agarwal Any
High Court Advocate Rishipal Agarwal other constituted attorney on
appeard on behalf of Writ behalf of NIACL, a public
Petitioners authority
c. Divisional Bench Advocate V Y Sanglikar Between 2013 -2022
WP/429/2014 Bombay Mr. V Y Sanglikar for stay
High Court orders Mr. V Y Sanglikar for
Writ Petition
d. for Single Bench Writ Advocate Rishipal Agarwal Since January 2022
Petition no. 524/2012 Mr. Rishipal Agarwal for stay
Jaipur bench Rajasthan orders
Page 3 of 8
High Court Mr. Rishipal Agarwal for writ
petition
e. Rajasthan State Event no. 26-c Since July 2022 Mr. Rishipal
Human Rights Advocate Rishipal Agarwal Agarwal for appearance
Commission
f. 16/08/2016 Supreme Writ Petition {d} no. Mr Shantanu Kumar and /or
Court of India 41357/2012 other advocates for
appearance
2. Information of public money spent for tour of vigilance officer of NIACL on the basis of which Mrs. Gopa Re the then CVO, NIACL issued reply dated Janurary 2019 {event no. 22-c} to CVC
3. Information of public money spent upon tours of witness Mr. Harichand Salary roll no. 20676 for in-house investigations against applicant during 2008- 2009.
4. Information of public money spent upon the then CPIO NIACL Mr. Harichand for appearance in Central Information Commission. {between 2007-2009}
5. Information of stay & /or court orders secured by one Amardeep Singh Oberoi, presently Manager in the NIACL regional office Jaipur during 1998-1999 that paved the way for his promotion from class-3 employee to class-1 Officer."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 25-01-2023 stating as under:
"This correspondence is in reply to your above RTI Application transferred from DFS on 12/1/23. Following are the point wise reply:
a. The information sought pertains to sections 2(n), 8(1) d, 8(1)(e) and 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Hence cannot be provided.
b the information asked for is rejected under sections 8(1) d, 8(1)(e), 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act 2005.
d. The information requested cannot be furnished as it is exempted under sections 8(1) d, 8(1)(e), 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
c. Your request for information is rejected under sections 8(1) d, 8(1)e, 8(1)(j) RTI Act 2005.
Page 4 of 83. Information sought is rejected under sections 2(n), 8(1) d, 8(1)(e), 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act 2005.
4. The information requested cannot be furnished as it is exempted under sections 2(n), 8(1) d, 8(1)(e), 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005.
5. The information sought pertains to sections 2(n), 8(1) d, 8(1)(e), 8(1) (j) of RTI Act 2005. Hence cannot be provided."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31-01-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 17-02-2023, held as under:
"First - The reply is in accordance with RTI ACT 2005, sections itself being transparent and adequate. This point of appeal is thus misleading.
Second-The pointwise information provided as per correspondence dated 25-01-23 by the ACPIO and CPIO HO is in pure accordance with the sections mentioned in RTI Act 2005 guidelines, championing the spirit of transparency accountability and clarity. Thus, there is no denial of information.
Third - No point has been ignored by ACPIO. Clear pointwise reply citing sections of RTI Act 2005 has been provided."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video-conference.
Respondent: Shri Navneet, Dy. Manager(HRM)-cum-CPIO present through video-conference.
CIC/NIACL/A/2023/618339 and CIC/NIACL/A/2023/615442 The Appellant raised his arguments on the following lines -
"..Brief facts leading to the appeal:Page 5 of 8
The applicant, a veteran whistle blower of PSU Insurance sought pointed information as per the Text of RTI application page no.1 Not only an empty formality of reply of an anonymous Manager was resorted by the PSU Insurance Managers but also the legality of reply seems zero as there is no mention of registered office address of the "company". Office of Union of India, Minister of Finance, e-mail of 3 February 2023 is responded to me:-
Caption: "Tampering with/printed content of Bharat Sarkar: RTI-Online First Appeal from shrigopal soni TNIAC/A/E/23/00012" Sir/Madam, Thanks you for your e-mail dated 1ª February 2023. Your email has been forwarded to the concerned for appropriate action.
Regards, Office of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs North Block New Delhi.
Prayer or Relief sought: 1. The information sought by me need be disclosed not only I remain affected in-person by denial tactics but also it is public interests.
2. The appellant's whistle blowing be recognized, bribe taker's remain as active insurance employee. 3. Investigation be ordered for false reply regarding "no bribe taking history" {P-16} it is in sharp contrast of standards of transparency and accountability in public life, the legislative intent of framers of right to information act,2005.
Compensation Sought: The appellant prays for compensation as per Sec 19(8)* of the RTI his right to information is suppressed by public authority in terms of the RTI act Grounds for the Prayer or Relief: A public authority cannot have double standards, NIACL a Regional Manager on behalf of corporate sought information from Income Tax department, all information including third party information has been allowed to be disclosed.
As per P-16 FAA discloses incorrect time limit of 45 days for filing second appeal. In my humble opinion the correct rule is:- The ii Appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the First Appellate Authority decision was actually received by the Appellant."
Respondent submitted that point-wise replies have already been provided to the Appellant vide letters dated 20-02-2023.
Page 6 of 8Appellant pleaded that the claim of NIACL on the letter being Government of India undertaking is illegal as it comes under the aegis of the Government.
Decision:
The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that as far as RTI Application is concerned appropriate response has been provided by the Respondent vide letters dated 20-02-2023 and 25-01-2023 (quoted above) by denying the information as the details of third party are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act.
It also appears during the hearing that the Appellant is embracing his grievance and has also been challenging the correctness of the information provided by the CPIO which cannot be resolved under the mandate of the RTI Act. Here, attention of the Appellant is drawn towards certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
Page 7 of 8"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
(Emphasis Supplied) In view of the above, no relief can be ordered in these matters.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार तििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्ि) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणर् सत्यापपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, New India Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Nehru Place, Tonk, Jaipur-302015 Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)