Central Information Commission
Mohit Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 20 December, 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/2018/609244-BJ
Mr. Mohit Kumar
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO & Chief RTI
Life Insurance Corporation of India
RTI Department, Central Office
5th Floor (West Wing), Yogakshema
Jeevan Bima Marg, P.O Box No - 19953
Mumbai - 400021
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18.12.2019
Date of Decision : 19.12.2019
Date of RTI application 28.10.2017
CPIO's response 10.11.2017
Date of the First Appeal 24.11.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 19.12.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission Nil
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points inter alia regarding the change in the email id and phone number in the Appellant's user id without his request and whether the same amounted to hacking of his mail id.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 10.11.2017 stated that the query raised did not qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 19.12.17 upheld the response of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Ms. Aarti Kunkalkar, Asst. Secretary and Ms. R. Sudha, Dy. Secy. (IT) through audio-conferencing;Page 1 of 3
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Ravinder, Network Engineer NIC studio at Hathras confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 06.12.2019 wherein it was stated that being fully satisfied with the response of the LIC, he wished to withdraw his appeal no LICOI/A/2017/60077 and requested that no hearing was required and LIC be informed accordingly. The Respondent reiterated the submissions of the CPIO / FAA. The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Respondent dated 12.12.2019 wherein it was stated that the CPIO had provided the Appellant the documents containing the email exchanges between the Appellant and LIC Portal Support Team related to the information sought. It also contained the email communication from the LIC Portal Support Team requesting to provide email id and mobile number which he wanted to be updated in his profile. Hence, the CPIO had provided the available information on record of the Public Authority. Furthermore on receipt of the request from the Appellant, the LIC Policy Support Team had carried out the desired requested changes with respect to the email id and mobile number of Appellant in his portal account. It was also conveyed that the Appellant vide email dated 06.12.2019 had also stated as follows "fully satisfied with the response of the LIC, I am withdrawing my appeal no LICOI/A/2017/60077 and I request that no hearing is required and you may inform LIC accordingly."
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:Page 2 of 3
"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."
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."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the written submission sent by the Appellant conveying his unwillingness to pursue the matter any further, no further intervention of the Commission is required.
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: 19.12.2019 Page 3 of 3