Central Information Commission
Prabha Pokharna vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 27 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.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2018/102167-BJ
Ms. Prabha Pokharna
....अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Manager (CRM), LIC of India
CRM Dept., Divisional Office
"Jeevan Prakash", Ranade Marg
Alwar Gate, Ajmer - 302029
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2019
Date of Decision : 27.05.2019
Date of RTI application 16.08.2017
CPIO's response 23.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal 04.10.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 03.11.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.01.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 02 points with regard to LIC policy of Late Sagarmal Pokharna (policy no. as mentioned in the RTI Application), certified copies of the documents submitted by her late husband in the Respondent Public Authority in respect of his policy which was matured in the year 2017, certified copies of the documents submitted by Mr. Sagarmal Sharma, S/o Shri Bhawar Lal Sharma in the Respondent Public Authority, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 23.08.2017 stated that the information sought was exempted u/s 8(1)
(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 03.11.2017 requested the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 60 for 30 pages (Rs 2/- per page) for the requisite information.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 4
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Anil Kr. Kasliwal, Manager (CRM) / CPIO through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Anil Yadav, Network Engineer NIC studio at Bhilwara confirmed the absence of the Appellant. The Respondent reiterated the response of the CPIO as also its written submission. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 21.05.2019, wherein it was submitted that the applicant was asking for the documents submitted by the person with the same name and same village of the original life assured, on which basis payment was made by their Bhilwara Branch and these documents were not available in their Branch Office - I, Bhilwara. Moreover, initially intimation for Maturity payment due in 11- 2016 was sent to the policy holder at the address given in policy master record "Smt. & Sh. Sagar Mal VPO - Danthal Via - Suwana Dist. - Bhilwara" which was received by wrong person due to similar name & address i.e. Sagar Mal and he got the payment on the basis of "without policy bond". Thereafter applicant submitted the documents that were also without policy bond. On receiving documents from the applicant they have recovered the amount paid to wrong person and paid the amount of Rs. 1,39,600/- on 15.02.2017 to applicant through NEFT vide UTR No. as mentioned in the submission and applicant's bank account has been credited on 15.02.2017. Now, the applicant was demanding the documents received by them from wrong person but they failed to provide the document due to missing of the same. Furthermore, a copy of reply of the CPIO/FAA was attached for kind reference.
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 4
"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."
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.
The 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."Page 3 of 4
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.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well.
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: 27.05.2019
Page 4 of 4