Central Information Commission
Mr.Ravi Kumar Podar vs Insurance Division on 22 February, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
1. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002245/LS
2. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002246/LS
3. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002592/LS
4. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000824/LS
5. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000833/LS
6. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/002540/LS
7. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002566/LS
8. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002585/LS
9. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002244/LS
10.File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002253/LS
11.File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002586/LS
12.File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002600/LS
13.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000169/LS
14.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000178/LS
15.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000823/LS
16.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000832/LS
17.File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/002550/LS
Appellant Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar
Public Authority Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(OICL),Indore/Jaipur.
Date of hearing 22.02.2013
Date of decision 22.02.2013
Facts :-
The above cited appeals have been filed by the appellant herein. These are being disposed of through a common order that follows.
2. These matters have been transferred to this Bench from another Bench by the Chief Information Commissioner. They are heard today dated 22.2.2013. Appellant not present. I spoke to him on his mobile No. 09926631707 at 1110 hrs. and asked him whether he had received the notice for his appearance before the Commission today dated 22.02.2013. He admitted that he had received the notice but expressed his inability to attend the proceedings due to his indisposition. He also informed that he had sent a request for adjournment of the proceedings. On enquiry, it is found that the Registry of the Chief Information Commissioner has received a letter dated 7.2.2013 from the appellant in this regard. The said letter is taken on record. In my opinion, it will not be expedient to adjourn the hearing as five officers of OICL are present before the Commission. Adjournment would mean waste of their time and resources. Hence, it has been decided to go ahead with the hearing and decide the matters on merits.
3. The OICL is represented by the following officers :-
1o Shri N.V. Satyanarayana, Regional Manager(CPIO), Indore;
o Shri Surender Kohli, CRM(AA); o Shri V.V. Mohila, Manager; o Dr. Ashok Jain, Manager(CPIO), Jaipur; and o Shri M.K. Gandhi, AM. 4. The case-wise position is as follows :- 1. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002245/LS :-
5. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 22.11.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"(i) Number of vigilance enquiries conducted by Dr. K.N. Srivastava, former Vigilance Officer in Regional Office, Indore, during his tenure at Indore and certified copies thereof.
(ii) Certified copies of the vigilance related complaints sent to said Shri Srivastava by OICL Head Office.
(iii) Certified copies of the vigilance related complaints received by said Shri Srivastava.
6. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(e). The AA had upheld this order.
7. However, in the appeal memo filed before this Commission, the appellant has contended that Dr. K.N. Srivastava protected a number of OICL officials involved in huge scandals/fraud and, therefore, public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest.
8. A similar matter had come up before this Commission earlier and the Commission in its order dated 30th June, 2009(F. No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000200) had observed as follows :-
"15. I think, there is merit in the argument that file-notings in vigilance and enquiry-related files, which are held confidentially by a public authority, must not be allowed to be disclosed to the employee or to any other seeking that information. The reason for that is sanguine. First, such disclosures serve no public interest. The employee's personal interest cannot be conflated with public interest. Second, such disclosures undeniably cause injury to the interest of the third-party, who holds these file-notings in certain special category of files, i.e. vigilance and enquiry-related files, confidentially. The officers and members of the staff who make such notings perform the thankless task of commenting on the conduct, reputation, behaviour of the officers enquired into apart from analyzing the evidence in order to help the competent authority make an informed decision. Such 2 comments and remarks recorded by officers, if disclosed to the very person against whom these are recorded, have the potentiality of being used by the employee to start legal processes against these officers for charges such as defamation, criminal conspiracy and so on. There is also a chance that the officer enquired into attempt to seek vengeance against those who recorded adverse notes against him in the note-files. The vengeance can take several forms, such as physical and mental threats, causing annoyance, long and expensive judicial proceedings and so on. Even if such actions of the employees or others sympathetic to them, do not yield any useful result to them; as long as these actions last, they cause boundless anxiety, annoyance, physical discomfort and stress to the officers for no fault of theirs, and in true fact, for doing their job ably, honestly and conscientiously. Anonymity of officers recording file-notes deserves to be protected in their own interest as well as the interest of the system they serve."
9. It needs to be emphasised that vigilance enquiries generally are confidential in nature. If they were to be placed in public domain, then the very purpose of conducting such enquiries would be defeated. Further, if the names of the officials against whom enquiries are conducted, are placed in public domain, they may suffer from a life long stigma, regardless of whether or not, ultimately, the charges are established against them. This situation cannot be countenanced. It is to be underlined that the RTI Act has been enacted to strengthen the governance; it has not been enacted to destroy governance. I may also add that disclosure of vigilance enquiry reports to the appellant would impede the efforts of the public authority to proceed against tainted officers. The complaints received by the Vigilance Officers from various quarters, including the highest headquarters, also cannot be placed in public domain for the aforesaid reasons.
10. It is also to be noted that the appellant has raised vague and omnibus queries. He has not sought any specific information. Even if it is believed that Dr. K.N. Srivastav unlawfully protected certain officers in his enquiries, as alleged by the appellant, the appellant was expected to name the officers so protected with a view to enabling the Commission to take a view as to whether that particular enquiry report is disclosable to him or not. The appellant has not undertaken any such exercise. He is on a fishing expedition. For all these reasons, in my opinion, the copies of the enquiry reports and copies of the complaints received by Shri K.N. Srivastava cannot be supplied to the appellant not only under clause (e) of section 8(1) but also under clause (j) thereof. However, in my opinion, there is no harm if the following information is provided to the appellant :-
(i) number of enquiries conducted by Dr. K.N. Srivastava during his tenure as Vigilance Officer;
(ii) number of complaints received by Dr. Srivastava during his tenure;
(iii) Circulars/guidelines, if any, issued by OICL for the entrustment of vigilance enquiries to the investigators.3
It is clarified that only numerical information is to be provided to the appellant and nothing more.
2. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002246/LS :-
11. In the RTI application dated 11.1.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
(i) Copy of the enquiry report conducted against Pramod Bhatnagar, former Branch Manager, and others along with the file notings connected there-with;
(ii) Certified copy of the enquiry report conducted by Shri N.N. Bhat and Shri A.R. Pote in this matter;
(iii) Certified copy of each page of MACT claim file available in Branch Office, Rewa; and
(iv) The names of the investigators who conducted enquiry in this matter and certified copies of the vouchers regarding payments made to such investigators.
12. Vide letter dated 17.2.2001, the CPIO had informed the appellant that Shri Pramod Bhatnagar had not agreed to the disclosure of this information to the appellant under section 11(1) of the RTI Act and, therefore, the requested information could not be supplied to him. On appeal, the Appellate Authority had affirmed the decision of the CPIO vide letter dated 18.3.2011.
13. It is noteworthy that as regards paras 01 & 02 of the RTI application, the appellant has referred to this Commission's decision dated 11.12.2009 in Deshbandhu Marwah -Vs- State Bank of Mysore(File No. CIC/SM/C/2009/000161 and CIC/SM/A/2009/000803) vide which the Commission had ordered disclosure of enquiry report after the enquiry had been completed in all respects. Para 04 of the said order is extracted below :-
"4. After hearing all the above submissions and arguments of the respondents and after carefully examining the contents of the second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission, we are of the view that the CPIO/Appellate Authority and the respondent have seriously erred in invoking the provisions of section 8(1)(h) and (j) in this case in denying the information to the appellant. The files and records relating to the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Bank against Shri A.K. Gupta, an officer of the Bank can never fall in the category of personal information. After all, the Public Authority had instituted the disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged misconduct and violation of prescribed rules and regulations. Admittedly such enquiries are initiated in public interest. Once the enquiry is over and the competent authority has passed his final orders, by no stretch of imagination, the records and files of the disciplinary proceedings can be denied by claiming it to be personal information merely because the proceedings are against an individual 4 employee. Since the disciplinary proceedings are regarding the public conduct/misconduct of an employee of the Public Authority, all the records and files in this regard are public records and have to be disclosed subject of course to other exemptions of the RTI Act."
14. During the hearing, Shri Satyanarayana submits that enquiry against Pramod Bhatnagar is complete in all respects and punishment has also been inflicted on him.
15. It may, however, be pertinent to mention that legal position has undergone a drastic change since then. The Supreme Court of India in its order dated 3.10.2012 passed in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande -Vs- Central Information Commission has held that copy of the charge-sheet can not be provided to the 3rd party. Paras 12 & 13 of the order are extracted below :-
"12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions. Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for consideration is whether the above-mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right."
16. By the parity of reasoning, the enquiry report, being 3rd party information, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(j). The same logic would apply to para 03 of the RTI application.
17. As regards para 04, the appellant has sought names of investigators and payments made to them. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court of India in order dated 13th 5 December, 2012, in Bihar Public Service Commission -Vs- Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizvi has held that names of the examiners/interviewers are not disclosable. Para 29 of the order is extracted below :-
"29. Now, the ancillary question that arises is as to the consequences that the interviewers or the members of the interview board would be exposed to in the event their names and addresses or individual marks given by them are directed to be disclosed. Firstly, the members of the Board are likely to be exposed to danger to their lives or physical safety. Secondly, it will hamper effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. This is the information available with the examining body in confidence with the interviewers. Declaration of collective marks to the candidate is one thing and that, in fact, has been permitted by the authorities as well as the High Court. We see no error of jurisdiction or reasoning in this regard. But direction to furnish the names and addresses of the interviewers would certainly be opposed to the very spirit of Section 8(1)(g) of the Act."
18. The ratio of above decision applies to para 04 of the RTI application. Hence, his request cannot be acceded to.
3. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002592/LS :-
19. In the RTI application dated 1.12.2010, the appellant had sought copies of the following documents in connection with the enquiry conducted against Shri Rajiv Laxman and others :-
"1. The chargesheet given to Shri Raju Laxman and the charged officials and employees.
2. The reply given by them to the above chargesheet.
3. The orders of EO and PO
4. The documents enlisted alongwith the chargesheet.
5. All witness examined and cross-examined.
6. Presenting Officer's report
7. Reply to the presenting Officer's report
8. Investigating Officer's Investigation report.
9. Statement of the charged officer enclosed in the above report
10. Reference to CVC for penalty
11. Show cause notice and reply to the same.
12. The penalty order issued to the charged officer and entire documents related to this order.
13. The letter of CVC and NOC on this case."
20. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 24.12.2010. The operative para of the letter is reproduced below :-
6"We have furnished the entire information raised by you above entirely under point number 5, 6, 7 of your application dated 19.10.2007 under the RTI Act vide our letters dated 08.04.2009, 08.05.2009 and 09.09.2010."
21. On appeal, the Appellate Authority in order dated 18.2.2010 had taken the view that the requested information was exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
22. Much water has flown down the Ganges since then. In a landmark judgment dated 3rd October, 2012, in Girish Ramchandra Deshpandey -Vs- Central Information Commission (SLP(Civil) No.27734 of 2012), the Supreme Court of India has held that action taken in the disciplinary proceedings is personal information and is not disclosable to the 3rd party. Paras 12 & 13 of the order have already been extracted herein-before.
23. The ratio of the above judgment applies in the present case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
4. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000824/LS:-
24. It is noticed that in the RTI application dated 15.10.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
(i) Certified copy of the complete claim file of Claim No. 1514/01/31/2008/499 & MIG/331.
(ii) Copy of the Vigilance Report No. V-2361 IRO/Pers./CDA/2011/05 and the matters connected there-with.
(iii) Certified copy of the Audit Report of City Branch office , Indore.
(iv) Copy of the charge-sheet dated 11.7.2011 served on Vijay Kumar Kanaujia along with connected documents;
(v) Reply submitted by said Kanaujia regarding the said charge sheet;
(vi) Whether any FIR was got registered regarding embezzlement of Company funds and if not name of the officer responsible there-for.
25. It is noticed that vide letter dated 15.11.2011, the CPIO had blandly refused to disclose any information under section 8(1)(d, (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. He had not responded to the queries, para-wise. The Appellate Authority, in order dated 6.2.2012 had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
26. In my opinion, the information requested for in paras (i), (ii), (iv) & (v) is not disclosable to the appellant for the reasons mentioned in the preceding case in the light of the 7 ruling of the Supreme Court referred to above. However, information sought in para (iii) is disclosable. As regards para (iv) this information is also disclosable subject to the condition that in case of non-lodgement of FIR, name of any officer need not be disclosed.
Ordered accordingly.
5. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000833/LS :-
27. Vide RTI application dated 27.9.2011, the appellant had sought to know the major/minor penalty chargesheets served on Capt. V.K. Singh, Divisional Manager, DO-4, Indore during his entire service career. Vide letter dated 21.10.2011, the CPIO had informed the appellant that as Capt. V.K. Singh had not agreed to the disclosure of this information, the said information could not be provided to him(appellant).
28. On appeal, the Appellate Authority had dittoed the decision of the CPIO vide order dated 6.2.2012.
29. Suffice to say that this information cannot be provided to the appellant in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case referred to above. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
6. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/002540/LS :-
30. In the RTI application dated 2.6.2012, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"(i) Certified copies of the 14 Policies viz. Policy No. 48/11/005338 to 005351;
(ii) Certified copy of cover notes respecting these Policies;
(iii) Certified copy of the Late Collection Register for the period 25.6.2010 to 5.7.2010.
(iv) Certified copy of the complaint lodged by Development Officer, Ashok Daketa/Agent Kataria;
(v) Certified copy of the DCB from 25.6.2010 to 25.7.2010;
(vi) Certified copy of the Audit Report in respect of City Branch Office, Indore."
31. The CPIO, vide letter dated 10.9.2012, had informed the appellant that the matter was under investigation and, therefore, the requested information could not be supplied under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the Appellate Authority had upheld the decision of the CPIO vide order dated 22.8.2012.
32. During the hearing, Shri Satya Narayan submits that the Vigilance Department has seized all the records relating to the Policies in-question and the matter is under investigation 8 and, therefore, the requested information is not disclosable to the appellant under section 8(1)
(h). I agree but for para (vi) i.e. Audit Report in respect of City Branch Office, Indore. This Report has already been ordered to be disclosed in File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/000824/LS..
33. The matter is decided accordingly..
7. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/002566/LS :-
34. With the RTI application dated 14.2.2012, the appellant had sent a copy of the letter dated 23.01.2007 purported to have been issued by Regional Office, Jaipur, to all D.Os.
under RO, Jaipur and had sought a certified copy thereof. In para 02 of the RTI application, the appellant had sought to have a copy of the letter purported to have been sent by Head Office of OICL to Regional Office, Jaipur, in response to the aforesaid letter.
35. The CPIO, however, had refused to disclose any information vide letter dated 2.3.2011 for the reason that said letter was not available in its records.. Order, if any, of the Appellate Authority is not available in the Commission's file.
36. However, during the hearing, Dr. Ashok Jain submits that a certified copy of the letter dated 23.1.2007 of RO, Jaipur, has since been supplied to the appellant through letter dated 12.2.2013. As regards the HO letter under reference, he submits that it is not possible to trace out this letter in the absence of the letter number or the date thereof. In the premises, the appellant is advised to send whatever details he may have to Dr. Ashok Jain directly for appropriate response at the latter's end.
37. The matter is being closed at the Commission's end.
8. CIC/DS/A/2011/002585/LS :-
38. In the RTI application dated 12.11.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :-
1. The gift items purchased by the Indore Region in the last two years -
(a) Identity of the firms/institutions/individuals to whom gifts were offered;
(b) Certified copies of the purchase vouchers; (c) Name and designation of the officer who approved the purchase of gift items; (d) Name and designation of the officer who ordered orally or in writing
offering of gifts to various individuals along with copy of the note sheet.
2. Copy of the rules/circulars/guidelines of the Company under which the gifts were offered to various individuals/instructions.
3. Copy of the order, if any, passed by the Board of Directors/CMD to the Indore Region for offering of gifts.
939. The CPIO had provided parawise information vide letter dated 20.1.2011. The first appeal was disposed of vide Appellate Order dated 10.2.2011.
40. In the appeal memo, the appellant has urged the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information to him. However, he has not specified as to on which point the information supplied to him is deficient. Be that as it may, as public money has been spent on the purchase of the gift items, the requested information fully falls in public domain. It is, therefore, ordered that the appellant may be invited to inspect the entire records relating to this matter on a mutually convenient date and time and he be permitted to take extracts there- from, free, of cost.
9. File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002244/LS :-
41. In the RTI application dated 21.12.2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of the Claims Nos. 151301/11/2000/1374, 1382, 1385 and 1386, purported to have fraudulently paid by OICL to Shri Nathji & Co. Besides, he had also sought to know the case number of the matter pending in the M.P. State Consumer Commission, Bhopal, etc.
42. In his letter dated 17.02.2011, the CPIO had informed the appellant that the claim numbers given by him did not pertain to the Company. On appeal, the AA in letter dated 25.03.2011 had mentioned that the correct number of the claim was 11/2000/10 but had refused to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(b) of the RTI Act for the reason that the matter was sub judice.
43. Suffice to say that filing of a claim and its acceptance by OICL is a matter between them. The appellant is a third party and has no claim to the requested documents. Exception, however, could be made in exceptional circumstances where there is evidence of overwhelming fraud resulting from connivance between the parties.
The appellant has simply made a bland allegation of fraud and has proferred no evidence to substantiate it. It would, thus, appear that he is seeking third party information to which he is not entitled u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
44. I may, however, add that the AA was wrong in denying information u/s 8(1)(b) as there was no court order prohibiting disclosure of information. Anyway, the end result remains the same. The appellant is not entitled to this information. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed.
10. File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002253/LS :-
45. In the RTI application dated 22.12.2010, the appellant had sought certified copies of the following Claims Nos :-
• JPA/302/47/99/0004 (Rajinder Kumar Jain • JPA/302/47/00/001 (Sheel Kumar Jain) 10
46. Shri Satyanarayan submits that this matter has already been decided by this Commission in order dated 22.06.2010 in File No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00025/DA.
47. The said order is perused. It is a case of res-judicata. Dismissed.
11. File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002586/LS :-
48. In the RTI application dated 23.11.2010, the appellant had sought the following information :
i) (a) Payments made to Adv Ravinder Singh Chhabra case-wise;
(b) Certified copies of the bills submitted to OICL;
(c) Certified copies of the payment vouchers.
ii) Cases entrusted to Adv Chhabra by OICL relating to MACT court
iii) Reasons for non appearance of Chief Regional Manager before the Indore Court on 16.11.2010, etc.
49. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter 06.12.2010 informing the appellant that he had issued notice to Adv Chhabra u/s 11 of the RTI Act and the latter had not agreed to the disclosure of this information. The CPIO refused to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(d) if the RTI Act The AA, in order 17.2.2011, had upheld the order of the CPIO u/s 8(1)(b)
50. In my opinion, both the CPIO and AA have not decided the case correctly and their orders are not sustainable in law. First and foremost, the application of section 8(1)
(b) of the RTI Act is not justified in the facts of the case. There are no orders of the court to forbid disclosure of information.
51. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed:
a) The appellant has not prescribed the time frame for which he is seeking the information. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to provide requested information for two calendar years i.e. 2010 and 2011 regarding the fees paid to Adv Chhabra, case wise;
b) However, copies of the payment vouchers need not be provided;
c) Information regarding the number of cases entrusted to Adv Chhabra may be supplied.
12. File No:CIC/DS/A/2011/002600/LS :-
52.. In the RTI application dated 26.11.2011, the appellant had sought information about the fee paid to various lawyers in MCRC No. 2777/2006 and MCRC No.54/2007.
Besides, he had also sought copies of the payment vouchers etc.
53. Vide letter dated 29.12.2010, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that this was third party information. On appeal, the AA had upheld the order of the CPIO vide letter dated 28.02.2011.
1154. The fee has been paid to the lawyers out of the funds of OICL. I, therefore, find no justification in non disclosure of this information to the appellant. In the premises, it is ordered that the fees paid to the lawyer(s) in the above mentioned cases may be supplied to the appellant. However, copies of the payment vouchers need not be supplied.
13. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000169/LS
55. In the RTI application dated 11.08.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
a) copies of his own CRs for the years 1991 to 2002 along with connected documents; &
b) whether any memo or warning was issued to him during the period 1991 to 2000.
56. The CPIO, vide letter dated 16.09.201,1 had mentioned that the CR of the appellant for the year 2000 only had been traced out and rest of the CRs could not be traced out. As regards, issue of memo or warning to him, the appellant was informed that three letters were traced out.
57. During the hearing, Shri Satyanarayan submits that whatever information was available has already been supplied to the appellant.
58. The CPIO is hereby directed to make fresh efforts to trace out the appellant's CRs and outcome thereof may be intimated to him in due course.
14. File No:CIC/DS/A/2012/000178/LS :-
59. Vide RTI application dated 07.09.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) certified copy of the Policy issued to Texmo Pipes and Products Ltd (TPPL) by the Burhanpur office of the OICL;
b) copy of the claim filed by the aforesaid company with OICL in respect of this Policy; &
c) certified copy of 80% claim passed by the officers of the OICL.
60. The CPIO in letter dated 03.10.2011 had informed the appellant that he had not not mentioned the Policy Number and claim number, due to which the requested information could not supplied to him. On appeal, the AA had upheld the decision of the CPIO in order dated 15.11.2011. Besides, AA had also taken the view that even if the requested information were available, the same was not discloseable under clauses (e) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
61. During the hearing, Shri Satyanarayana fairly submits that it is possible to trace out the Policy in question but the requested information is personal in nature and can not be supplied to the appellant without the consent of the third party i.e. M/s Taxmo Pipes and Products Ltd.
1262. Suffice to say that the appellant has sought personal and 3rd party information. It can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. There is nothing on record to establish such larger public interest. I may also add that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in girish Ramchandra Deshpande case squarely applies in this case. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
15. File No:CIC/DS/A2012/000823LS :-
63. In the RTI application dated 29.9.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) The period of posting of Capt V.K. Singh as Divisional Manager of Gwalior Region;
b) Copies of the tour bills submitted by Capt Singh during the said period.
64. Vide letter dated 21.10.2011, the CPIO had refused to disclose this information. AA, vide order dated 06.02.2012 had upheld the decision of the CPIO .
65. In my opinion, both the CPIO and AA have not decided the case correctly. The posting of an officer at a particular location is in public domain and this information can not but be disclosed. Hence, the CPIO is hereby directed to intimate the time period of the posting of Capt Singh as DM of Gwalior Region
66. However, as regards the supply of copies of the tour bills of said Capt Singh, Shri Satyanarayana submits that Capt Singh remained posted at the Gwalior office for a long time and would have submitted a large number of tour bills to the competent authority. It is his contention that supply of copies of the tour bills at this belated stage would put undue strain on the resources of the OICL.
67. Given the fact that Capt Singh had submitted tour bills for reimbursement, there is no harm in disclosing this information in principle. However, since the workload involved is huge, it would be expedient to give inspection of the tour bills of said Capt Singh to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time at Gwalior. The appellant will have liberty to take photo copies of the documents as per his reqquirement on payment of requisite fee. The matter is decided accordingly.
16. File No;CIC/DS/A/2012/000832/LS :-
68. It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 08.11.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :
a) certified copy of the Policy No.2002/1733, Collection No.12443 dated 26.03.2022 issued to M/s Kinetic Motors Ltd. and the connected documents;
&
b) certified copy of Policy No.2003/1391, Collection No.11466 dated 25.03.2003 and the connected documents.
1369. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information under clauses (d) & (e) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 14.12.2011. The grounds for rejection given by the CPIO are extracted below :-
"Undisputably, the insured M/s Kinetic Motors Co Ltd has been issued a Group Mediclaim Policies by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. While issuing policies, certain information pertaining to trade secrets instilling reciprocal commercial confidence were shared between the insured and the insurer. The policies were issued by the insurer and purchased by the insured under a bona fide belief that such trade secrets shall not be disclosed. Based on reposition of this commercial confidence, contracts of mediclaim insurance were executed between the insured and insurer. Disclosure of such information and providing of documents sought vide application under reply would not only be a serious breach of commercial confidence reposed by the insured with the insurer but also shatter the mutual understanding between the parties that the trade secrets shall not be disclosed to any one. Thus, the information and the documents sought vide your application dated 14.11.2011 can not be disclosed u/s 8(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(ii) The application is also rejected on the ground that the insured has a fiduciary relationship with the insured M/s Kinetic Motor Co Ltd and no larger public interest would be served by disclosure of information or supply of documents sought vide your application. The larger public interest has already been taken care of by the Auditors.
(iii) The application is also rejected on the ground that the disclosure of personal information of the insured M/s Kinetic Motor Co Ltd would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and there is no public interest of larger public interest involved justifying of such information."
70. On appeal, the AA had affirmed the order of the CPIO vide letter dated 06.02.2012.
71. The appellant is seeking third party information which is personal in nature. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case squarely applies in this case. I find no infirmity in the decisions of CPIO and AA. The appeal is mis-conceived. Dismissed.
17. File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/002550/LS :-
72. Vide RTI application dated 3.07.2012, the appellant had sought the following information :
i) Certified copies of circulars/rules/guidelines issued by OICL regarding purchase of vehicles;
ii) Certified copies of the circulars\rules/guidelines issued by the company regarding sale of salvage material 14
iii) Copies of the documents relating to auction of salvage vehicles in 2010;
iv) Names and addresses of the persons who purchased the salvage vehicles;
v) Copy of the audit report regarding sale of salvage vechiles; and
vi) Comments of the senior officers of OICL on the audit report in respect of these salvage vehicles.
73. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 02.07.2011 refusing to disclose this information u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA vide order dated 22.8.2012 had upheld the order of the CPIO.
74. In my opinion, neither the CPIO nor the AA have passed legally sustainable orders. First and foremost, in paras (i) and (ii) the appellant has sought copies of the rules/guidelines/circulars for sale of vehicles by the company and the auction of salvage of vehicles etc. This information cent-per-cent falls in public domain. It is, therefore, ordered that copies of the rules/guidelines/circulars may be supplied to the appellant in 03 weeks.
75. As regards the information sought by appellant from para (iii) to para (vi) in my opinion, this information is also disclosebale.
76. However, Shri Satyanarayan submits that supply of this information would put undue strain on the resources of OICL In the premises, it is ordered that the appellant may be given inspection of the entire records requested for in the above paras on a mutually convenient date and time and may be permitted to take extracts therefrom on payment of requisite fee.
77. Before parting with this matter, I would like to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay in Civil Appeal No. 6454 Of 2011 in which it has advised the information seekers not create a situation whereby 75% of the time of the 75% public servants is spent only in responding to the RTI applications to the detriment of their routine duties. Para 37 of the said order is extracted below:-
37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information, (that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). 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 15 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 a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
78. The appellant is advised to keep the above observations of the Supreme Court in mind while exercising his rights under the RTI Act.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Regional Manager & CPIO, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd; Regional Office, IDA Bldg; 4th Floor, 7 Race Course Road, Indore-3, MP.
2. The CPIO, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd;
Regional Office, 3rd Floor, Anand Bhawan, S.C. Road, Jaipur-302001.
3. The Regional Manager & CPIO, Oriental Insurance;
Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
4. Shri Ravi Kumar Potdar, 72/74 , Nand Nagar, Indore.
16