Central Information Commission
Nandhagiri Jaya Laxmi vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 21 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/2017/183844-BJ
Ms. Nandhagiri Jaya Laxmi
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Secunderabad Division, LIC of India
Secunderbad Divisional Office, Jeevan Sagar Building
Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad - 500080
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2019
Date of Decision : 21.05.2019
Date of RTI application 11.07.2017
CPIO's response 17.08.2017
Date of the First Appeal Nil
First Appellate Authority's response 20.09.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 19.12.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide her RTI application stated that she had worked as a Class IV Temporary Staff as Sub-Staff in 1990 from 17.01.1990 to 02.03.1990 and from 06.03.1990 to 09.04.1990 (total 80 days) and desired the authenticated certificate for the working period, payment made to her for the aforementioned period of work, etc. The CPIO, vide his letter dated 17.08.2017 stated that the records pertaining to the said period were not available with the authority. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide his order dated 20.09.2017 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mrs. S. Nagaraja Kumari, Mgr. (P&IR) through VC;Page 1 of 8
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent reiterated its reply as also their written submission. The Respondent informed the Commission that being old records it was not possible for them to locate these papers. However, in the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 the concerned department had made a diligent search to trace out the records available but since the subject matter was very old; nothing could be traced, so far.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 12.04.2019 wherein the reply of the CPIO/ FAA was re-iterated.
At the outset, the Commission observed that consequent upon the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 dated 18.03.2015 directing the Respondent Public Authority (LIC) to frame a scheme for regularization of those employees who were granted ad-hoc appointment for 85 days at intervals from time to time, a large number of such applications were being received in the Commission with the intended objective to seek information from the Public Authority certifying that the Appellant/Complainant had worked for specified number of days on a temporary/contractual/casual basis to prove their bonafide for securing a regular employment with the LIC. Furthermore, the Curative Petition No. 23 of 2017, etc filed by the LIC of India were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.02.2017. Therefore, the Commission had sympathetically viewed all such applications to maintain consistency in deciding these matters.
A reference was drawn to the judgments of the Commission in similar such matters as under:
Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/174390-BJ dated 07.05.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/185684-BJ dated 03.05.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180886-BJ dated 29.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/181513- BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/181506-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180745-BJ dated 15.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180160-BJ dated 10.04.2019 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/180859-BJ dated 05.04.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/175999-BJ dated 27.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169667-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169666-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169665-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169664-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169663-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169662-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/169661-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/170797-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/184201-BJ dated 19.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/158303-BJ dated 12.03.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/162967-BJ dated 08.02.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/168986-BJ dated 15.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/605776-BJ dated 15.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/168353-BJ dated 11.01.2019, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/605770-BJ 11.01.2019; CIC/LICOI/A/2017/166034-BJ dated 27.12.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/163675-BJ dated 18.12.2018, CIC/LICI/A/2017/161740-BJ dated 06.12.2018; Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/160376-BJ dated 05.12.2018; Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/163085-BJ dated 03.12.2018 Appeal No.:-
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/156631-BJ Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/156631-BJ dated 20.11.2018 Appeal No. :- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155196-BJ, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155792-BJ dated 02.11.2018 Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/151092-BJ dated 11.10.2018 Appeal No.:-
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147409-BJ dated 09.10.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/148984-BJ dated 04.10.2018 Appeal No.:- CIC/LICOI/A/2017/132918-BJ dated 01.10.2018, Appeal No.:-
CIC/LICOI/A/2017/147277-BJ dated 25.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140899-BJ dated 20.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/150027-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/143439-BJ dated 11.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/142389-BJ dated 10.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/140895-BJ dated 06.09.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/137464-BJ dated 24.08.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/136203-BJ dated 21.08.2018 Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/133847-BJ dated 01.08.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124555-BJ dated 25.07.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901-BJ dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128260 dated 29.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/128668 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/129878 dated 27.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124896 dated Page 2 of 8 21.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124901 dated 11.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/126015 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675 dated 05.06.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/123124, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124675, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124281, CIC/LICOI/A/2017 /126015, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122820-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122821-BJ+ CIC/LICOI/A/2017/131705-BJ +CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124443-BJ +CIC/LICOI /A/2017/154962 dated 05.06.2018, Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2017/124400-BJ Dated 05.06.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/121923-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/122904-BJ + CIC/ LICOI/A/2017/122906-BJ dated 25.05.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/ 2017/119849-BJ dated 18.05.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/114808-BJ + CIC/LICOI/A/2017/130667-BJ dated 24.04.2018, CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110899-
BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/110879-BJ+CIC/LICOI/A/2017/155095-BJ dated 13.04.2018 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/187460-BJ dated 10.01.2018; etc. etc. The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 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:
"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, Page 3 of 8 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."
However, considering the large number of Second Appeals/ Complaints received by the Commission regarding granting of permanent status to temporary employees as per the directives of the Apex Court, the Commission in several other matters had previously directed to suo motu disclose in the public domain, the details of persons who had been granted/ not granted appointment and the reasons thereof in compliance with the aforementioned decision for the ease and convenience of all the stakeholders. In this context, the Commission had observed that voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
Page 4 of 8A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 "The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest"
must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."Page 5 of 8
As regards the instant matter, 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:
"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 also 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 Page 6 of 8 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."
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) Page 7 of 8 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 establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission advised the Respondent to re-ascertain the availability of records failing which an affidavit be furnished to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order explaining the factual status in the matter.
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: 21.05.2019
Page 8 of 8