Central Information Commission
Launglata Thakran vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 September, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/UIICL/A/2024/614973
Launglata Thakran .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No. 19, 4th Lane, Nungambakkam
High Road, Chennai - 600034 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.08.2025
Date of Decision : 09.09.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.12.2023
CPIO replied on : 18.12.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.02.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 26.02.2024
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.04.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an (online) RTI application dated 16.12.2023 seeking the following information:
"Please help to provide the status report of the investigation or inquiry conducted by your officials regarding my complaint as enclosed. Please also provide the attested copies of complete file including all supporting documents of above mentioned investigation or inquiry report alongwith supporting documents pertaining to my said complaint."Page 1 of 5
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 18.12.2023 stating as under:
"Since the complaint and supporting documents pertaining to Fraud in government jobs, as mentioned in your application are not attached, we are unable to provide any reply. Hence, we are treating this application as disposed."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.02.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 26.02.2024, held as under.
"We have advised the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application in context of your appeal.
Reply to query: We hereby state that the appellant has not sought for any remedy/ information in the appeal.
This order is in disposal of the above referred appeal."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
5. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal on Respondent while filing the same in CIC is not available on record.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Ms. Yogita Malik, Advocate/Representative of the Appellant attended the hearing in person.
Respondent: Shri Pranav Pradeep Saxena, APIO-cum-DM, attended the hearing through VC.
6. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
7. The Respondent submitted that the present matter which has been raised by the Appellant in the instant RTI Application is already pending before the Honourable Court of JMFC, Gurugram under Criminal Proceedings vide case number DV/184/2022. Hence, no information can be given to the Appellant since the matter is sub-judice. While explaining the brief background of the case, the Respondent apprised the Bench that the Appellant has filed a complaint against Shri Sandeep Grewal Page 2 of 5 pertaining to impersonation in an examination and on the averred complaint, their office has not initiated any inquiry as of now.
8. A written submission has been received from Ms. Pushpalatha Natarajan, CPIO, vide letter dated 26.08.2025, a copy of which has been sent to the Appellant and the same has been taken on record. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
"Smt. Launglata Thakran preferred an online RTI application on 16.12.2023 seeking 'Status report' or 'Inquiry report' of the investigation or inquiry assumed by the appellant to have been conducted by the Company officials regarding her complaint as under:
"Please help to provide the status report of the investigation or inquiry conducted by your officials regarding my complaint as enclosed. Please also provide the attested copies of complete file including all supporting documents of above mentioned investigation or inquiry report along with supporting documents pertaining to my said complaint"
We disposed the said RTI application on 18.12.2023 stating the following:
"Since the complaint and supporting documents pertaining to fraud in government jobs, as mentioned in your application are not attached. We are unable to provide any reply.".
As the Appellant had not attached any document, we replied as above. Consequently, the appellant filed online First Appeal dated 06.02.2024 providing the details of her complaint against Shri Sandeep Grewal in relation to the use of illegal means in getting appointment as Administrative Officer in United India Insurance Co. Ltd in the year 2011. However, in the First Appeal filed by the appellant, no information or remedy was sought for. The appellate authority replied to the said First Appeal on 28.02.2024 as below:
"We hereby state that the appellant has not sought for any remedy/ information in the appeal."
Thus, the First Appeal filed by the Appellant was disposed of. Regarding the Second Appeal filed by the appellant, we hereby provide our reply as under:
"We hereby state that the present matter which has been raised by the Appellant herein is already pending before the Honourable Court of JMFC, Gurugram under Criminal Proceedings vide case number DV/184/2022 (Titled as Launglata V/s Sarita). The said case has been filed on the instance of the present Appellant. The next date of hearing in this case is 05.09.2025. In view of the above discussion, the following is submitted:
1. The matter is subjudice before the Honourable court of law.
2. The information sought by the appellant is not available""
Decision:
Page 3 of 59. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the Respondent has denied the information citing the matter is sub- judice. The Commission counsels the Respondent that there is no provision in RTI Act which allows denial of information on the grounds of sub-judice. In this regard, the Commission relies on an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of MCD vs. R.K. Jain vide W.P.(C) No. 14120/2009. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:
"... the matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."
10. Provisions of Section 8 (1) (b) of the RTI Act do not apply Suo moto in sub-judice matters unless one of the parties approaches the Court and obtains appropriate injunction. So far, the Respondent has not obtained such an injunction, hence, exemption is not available.
11. In view of the above, the Commission opines that merely stating that a matter is sub-judice would not be sufficient ground for withholding information under the RTI Act. The Commission cautions the Respondent to be careful in future while dealing with matters pertaining to the RTI Act. Accordingly, the Commission deems it fit to direct the CPIO to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant in the light of the submission made during the hearing, within three weeks of receipt of this order. The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of the directions.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स!ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 4 of 5 Copy To:
The FAA, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No. 19, 4th Lane, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600034 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)