Central Information Commission
P V Subrahmanyam vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 17 June, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/LICOI/C/2018/167439-BJ
Mr. P V Subrahmanyam
(Email: [email protected])
.... िशकायतकता /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
Manager (Legal) & CPIO,
LIC of India, CRM Deptt.,
Divisional Office, Balasamundram, Warangal - 506001
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.06.2020
Date of Decision : 17.06.2020
Date of filing of RTI application 27.09.2018
CPIO's response 26.10.2018
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission 14.11.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the names of individuals empowered/permitted as Senior Business Associates, Empowered Agents and LICAs to open offices for collection of LIC premium at Bhadrachalam and Kothagudem Towns; the details of norms prescribed for setting up of such offices /collection centers and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 26.10.2018, provided a point-wise information to the Complainant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.Page 1 of 3
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. P V Subrahmanyam through TC;
Respondent: Mrs. Jyoti Shri, Manager (CRM) and CPIO through TC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of the RTI application addressed to the Postal Department and submitted that he was not prepared for today's hearing in the subject matter relating to LIC. In its reply, the Respondent while referring to the RTI application dated 27.09.2018 of the Complainant, stated that a suitable point-wise response was provided by the CPIO on 26.10.2018 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. First Appeal filed by the Complainant dated 01.11.2018 was also disposed off by the FAA vide order dated 30.11.2018.
On being queried by the Commission whether the Complainant was working in the Respondent Public Authority, he replied in the negative. On being further queried regarding the larger public interest involved in disclosure of the information, no cogent response was offered by the Complainant. The Respondent further relied on its written submissions. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 10.06.2020 wherein a point-wise submission/clarification was made in response to the Complaint dated 05.11.2018 of the Appellant filed before the Commission.
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 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:
Page 2 of 36. "....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."
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 both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The Respondent is however instructed to forward a copy of the written submission sent to the Commission along with the copy of the order of the FAA to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email (Email: [email protected]), as agreed.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
(The Order will be posted on the website of the Commission).
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का) (Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) K.L. Das (के .एल.दास) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535/ [email protected] दनांक / Date: 17.06.2020 Page 3 of 3