Central Information Commission
Shri G.L. Jain vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 15 September, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00179
Dated, the 15th September, 2008.
Appellant : Shri G.L. Jain
Respondents : Life Insurance Corporation of India
This matter was heard on 08.09.2008 in the presence of the appellant, who was accompanied by his Counsel, Mr.Ehtesham Hashmi, and the respondents represented by Shri B.P. Jhanwar, Manager & CPIO.
2. Through Commission's order dated 30.07.2007 (in Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00604), appellant was allowed inspection of documents relating to his RTI-application dated 10.03.2006. Accordingly, appellant conducted the inspection of the documents at the public authority's Jodhpur office on 21.11.2007.
3. The appellant has now come before the Commission with a complaint dated 15.01.2008 alleging that respondents were unable to produce before him for inspection the records which he specifically wanted to inspect corresponding to queries at Sl. Nos. 2, 4 and 6 in his RTI-request letters dated 10.03.2006. These queries read as follows:-
"2. Medical examiner's register & diary book - From 1-2-1992 to 31-3-1992 which contains signatures of policy holders along with signatures.
4. Letter dispatch (ordinary post) register - From 10-02-1995 to 20-02-1995.
6. All medical examination reports on record."
4. Appellant now claims that the failure of the respondents to produce those old records for his inspection amounted to willful destruction of litigation records which were connected with a case pending in the court. It is the contention of the appellant that all case records are to be permanently preserved and it cannot be destroyed as put-forth as the reason for the non-availability of records by the respondents. It is the allegation of the appellant that important papers were missing from the records which he was allowed to inspect on 21.11.2007.
5. Respondents emphatically asserted that the records, which pertained mostly to the year 1992, were not traceable ─ possibly destroyed. No record of the destruction is available in the office. In the face of the unavailability of the Page 1 of 2 record, respondents expressed their inability to provide it to the appellant. Respondents further pointed out that it was not open to the appellant to demand from the respondents records in the litigation which the respondents admittedly had with the appellant.
6. This is not the first case that has come before the Commission in which old records have been claimed to be untraceable by a public authority. It has also been noticed here that when records were destroyed in the past as per the schedule of destruction, no evidence of such destruction was maintained. While one would expect public authorities to maintain their records and documents carefully for long years, such ideal situation is rather rare. Record management in public authorities in the government system is far from satisfactory resulting in important records going missing.
7. Respondents had categorically and emphatically stated before the Commission that the records requested by the appellant was not available with them and whatever was available had been inspected by the appellant on the Commission's direction. They have nothing more to disclose.
8. In the face of such categorical assertion, it is not possible to draw any adverse conclusions against the respondents. This appears to be a case where records requested by the appellant don't seem to be available on the file of the respondents. Therefore, there is no possibility of these being supplied to the appellant.
9. There is another matter which also deserves some reflection. The records which the appellant is seeking admittedly relate to the litigation which he seemed to have had with the respondents. As such, this is a matter exclusively personal to the appellant and doesn't seem, to have any public interest, or serve any public purpose. It, therefore, attracts the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission doesn't approve of actions of petitioners who first engage a public authority in litigation and then use the RTI Act to demand from them, frequently after long years of the litigation, the documents connected with that litigation. Their personal interest in the matters is evident and it is my judgement that this brings the request within the ambit of the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
10. In view of the above, it is directed that there will be no further disclosures in this matter. The appeal / complaint is rejected.
11. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Page 2 of 2