Central Information Commission
Ravinder Chopra vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 17 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.(s):- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183550-BJ+
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185474-BJ+
CIC/LICOI/A/2018/133409-BJ+
CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173147-BJ+
CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173146-BJ+
CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173145-BJ
Mr. Ravinder Chopra
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Manager (CRM), LIC of India
Delhi Divisional Office - III
"Jeevan Pravah Tower", District Centre
Janakpuri, New Delhi - 110058
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 16.05.2019
Date of Decision : 17.05.2019
ORDER
RTI - 1 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183550-BJ Date of RTI application 08.08.2017 CPIO's response 30.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 07.09.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 03.10.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 18.12.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought on 03 points regarding the reasons for issuance of administrative or quasi-judicial decisions by Manager (P&IR) to him vide letter dated 17.07.2017 & 20.07.2017, he further requested for inspection of the entire record relating to above referred matter, complete address (including the name of the authority, phone number, e-Page 1 of 12
mail address) of the authorities in LIC or outside LIC to whom as an employee of LIC could apply for redressal of his / her grievances, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.08.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant seeking exemption under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.10.2017, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 2 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185474-BJ Date of RTI application 06.09.2017 CPIO's response 03.10.2017 Date of the First Appeal 01.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 28.11.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.12.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the details of CCTVs installed in the Jeevan Pravah Building, department-wise and other-wise also, period for which they preserve the CCTV footage as installed in the above said building. He further requested for inspection of the entire record relating to above stated matter, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 03.10.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.11.2017, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 3 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/133409-BJ
Date of RTI application 20.12.2017
CPIO's response 29.12.2017/
17.01.2018/
02.02.2018
Date of the First Appeal 19.02.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 14.03.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.05.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points regarding the number of lifts operating in the Jeevan Pravah Building, DO-3, LIC of India, and the number, if any, allotted to them, lifts operating in the Respondent Public Authority allocated from ground floor to other floors for the period from 01.01.2017 to 07.12.2017 and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.12.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.01.2018 enclosed the desired information after receipt of an amount of Rs. 96/- from the Appellant as photocopying charges. Thereafter, the Page 2 of 12 CPIO, vide its letter dated 02.02.2018 requested the Applicant to mark the pages desired for inspection sought vide letter dated 30.01.2018. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 14.03.2018, upheld the CPIO's response.
RTI - 4 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173147-BJ
Date of RTI application 08.06.2018
CPIO's response 30.06.2018/
11.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 10.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 10.09.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 17 points regarding the rules relating to reimbursement of entertainment expenses paid to the class I officers in LIC Offices, details when the canteen remained closed and meanwhile who had been authorized to supply tea etc. in DO-3, Jeevan Pravah Building, New Delhi, during 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2017 and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.06.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.07.2018 enclosed the desired information after receipt of an amount of Rs. 126/- from the Appellant as photocopying charges. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.09.2018, stated that the documents were provided after severance of the record containing information which was exempted from disclosure and disposed off the Appeal.
RTI - 5 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173146-BJ
Date of RTI application 22.06.2018
CPIO's response 19.07.2018/
21.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 18.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 11.09.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 17 points regarding the material placed before the SDM, DO-3, Disciplinary Authority which made him to take a decision to issue charge sheet dated 05.07.2017 and10.08.2017 to the Applicant along with the decision making process, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.07.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.07.2018 enclosed the desired information after receipt of an amount of Rs. 22/- from the Appellant as photocopying charges. Dissatisfied by the Page 3 of 12 response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 11.09.2018, stated that the documents were provided after severance of the record containing information which was exempted from disclosure as provided under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 and disposed off the Appeal.
RTI - 6 File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173145-BJ
Date of RTI application 29.05.2018
CPIO's response 20.06.2018/
29.06.2018/
21.07.2018
Date of the First Appeal 13.08.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 10.09.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2018
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points regarding the Rules relating to the constitution of canteen committee in the office of LIC, whether the Rules relating to the constitution of canteen committee have been fully complied with in the Divisional Office, DO-3, or not, if so, the reasons thereof, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 20.06.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. Subsequently, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 29.06.2018 enclosed the desired information after receipt of an amount of Rs. 76/- from the Appellant as photocopying charges. Thereafter, the CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.07.2018 enclosed the desired information after receipt of an amount of Rs. 32/- as photocopying charges. The FAA, vide its order dated 10.09.2018, stated that the documents were provided after severance of the record containing information which was exempted from disclosure as provided under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 and upheld the CPIO's response. It was also stated that a opportunity for inspection of records was also provided.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mrs. Renu Chopra along with Mr. Ravinder Chopra and Mr. S. S. Jain; Respondent: Mr. Satya Bhushan Chugh, Mgr. (CRM) & CPIO, Mr. Nirman Dhingra, Mgr. and Ms. Rashi Pradhan, AO (P&IR);
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and while acknowledging the receipt of replies on payment of requisite fee where ever demanded, stated that false and misleading information had been furnished in all these matters. He alleged that the FAA had also not considered his cases fairly and erroneously upheld the CPIOs response. Several other allegations relating to the non-functional grievance redressal mechanism and irresponsive management were levelled against the management for its illegal and malafide actions. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that in each and every matter listed for the hearing, information available had already been shared with the Appellant. Inspection had also been offered which Page 4 of 12 was availed by him. He had also taken the requisite photocopies thereafter. However, since the Appellant's disciplinary proceeding is over, they were willing to offer an inspection of his documents once again and to furnish all the desired documents/information available on record. On being queried by the Commission, whether he had approached the CMD or any other appropriate competent authority in the matter, the Appellant replied in the Affirmative and submitted that no action had been taken by the senior management. He further challenged the functioning of the Management and alleged that the employees' grievances were being blatantly ignored and brushed aside. On being further queried by the Commission, whether he had approached any Judicial Forum in this regard, the Appellant replied in the Affirmative and submitted that the Court had referred back the matter for its adjudication through the internal laid down mechanism. The Commission categorically explained to the parties that as far as the Commission was concerned, it would strictly comply with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and that it was beyond its jurisdiction to look into the merits of the case. The Appellant was however advised to approach the competent authority for redressal of their grievances. The Appellant inter-alia prayed for a detailed inquiry in all the matters, and requested for imposition of penalty and disciplinary action u/s 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the delinquent officers.
When countered with the allegations levelled against the top management of the Corporation for its inaction and recalcitrant attitude towards its employees, in its written submission, the Appellant while referring to the cases listed for hearing on 08.05.2019 and 16.05.2019, submitted that the CPIO and First Appellate Authority did not provide the information which was obligatory and mandatory on the part of the public authorities though the same existed on their record. Furthermore, it was alleged that the information sought from the public authorities was filtered, fractured and malafidely concealed. He further submitted that during the hearing, conclusive evidence was produced before the Commission to support their contention and that the CPIO did not react to their submission except stating that "he has nothing to say in this matter". It was further submitted that the conclusive evidence was produced before the Commission to the effect that though the required information was available on record with the Public Authorities yet the same was not provided. Specifically, the CCTVs installed in Jeevan Pravah Building, LIC of India, DO-3, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 for the sole purpose to record the movements of visitors including employees and for other developments taking place in the said building. Moreover, the details pertaining to canteen, lifts, as desired, were also not provided. It was further alleged that charge sheet was being filed against him when he started filing RTI applications under the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the LIC is a public sector undertaking which came into existence in 1956 by an Act of Parliament and the Chairman of LIC was empowered to frame rules in compliance to the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Staff Regulations 1960 amended from time to time but certain powers in the matter of recruitment of employees and officers in LIC were taken back from the Chairman of LIC and the same stand transferred to the Finance Ministry by an Act in the year 1981. Furthermore, in File No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183549, it was submitted that the information sought in the application was denied wrongfully by the CPIO and the CCTV footage of 15/09/2017 incident was also not provided on fake grounds. Furthermore, in reference to another decision of the Commission dated 08.05.2019 (in S. S. Jain's case), wherein a direction was given by the Commission to furnish an affidavit in 5 cases duly attested by an oath commissioner under copy to the petitioner (S. S. Jain) had not been provided so far. It was further alleged that the Public Authorities were not inclined to provide the required information though the same was available on record of the public authorities and the information was denied malafidely and with bad intentions, which was in total violations of the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.Page 5 of 12
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/183550-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 30.08.2017. As regards information exempted under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, it was submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant is over.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185474-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 03.10.2017.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/133409-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 29.12.2017, 17.01.2018 and 02.02.2018. The Applicant was also allowed the inspection of record.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173147-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 30.06.2018 and 11.07.2018.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173146-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 19.07.2018. The Applicant was also allowed the inspection of record.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 14.05.2019 (Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2018/173145-BJ) wherein while reiterating the response of the CPIO/FAA, it was prayed to the Commission to dismiss the present Appeal of the Applicant based on the reply of the CPIO dated 20.06.2018, 29.06.2018, 19.07.2018 and 21.07.2018. The Applicant was also allowed the inspection of record.
Page 6 of 12It was noted that a similar-subject matter had been heard and adjudicated by the Commission in Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2010/000151 dated 15.09.2010.
Having heard both the parties at length and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset referred 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 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 and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), 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, 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."
Page 7 of 127. "....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."
The Commission also took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 wherein it was held as under:
"Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 dated 02.09.2011 had held as under:
"26. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources"
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
Page 8 of 12The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"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. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had 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.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) Page 9 of 12 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be Page 10 of 12 satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
......The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. It was evident that the Appellant repeatedly nursed his grievances against the management arising out of his personal matter.
Page 11 of 12DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties as well as the apprehensions/ allegations raised by the Appellant regarding the non-specific/ vague/ misleading responses provided by the CPIO, the Commission observed that in all the applications listed for consideration, technically the Respondent had replied in the matter. However, the Appellant remained dissatisfied with the response as his specific queries remained unanswered to his satisfaction. Essentially, all these matters pertained to the personal grievance of the Applicant that required administrative attention by the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Several allegations were levelled against the inaction by the Senior Management of the LIC that required in depth examination by the Organization itself. The Commission therefore, considering the sensitivities of the matter and administrative nature of the queries, directs the CMD, Life Insurance Corporation of India to depute an officer of an appropriate seniority to enquire into the grievances of the Applicant in the light of allegations made by the Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand 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: 17.05.2019
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, Department of Financial Services, 3rd floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, Delhi 110001
2. The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, 'Yogakshema', Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Page 12 of 12