Central Information Commission
Shri R. Qaiser vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Oicl)& ... on 30 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
...
F.No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01470 F.No. CIC/AT/C/2008/00685
Dated: the 30th March, 2009
Appellant : Shri R. Qaiser Respondents : The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OICL)&
General Insurers'[Public Sector] Association of India(GIPSA) This matter came up for hearing on 18.03.2009 pursuant to the Commission's hearing notices dated 04.02.2009 and 06.02.2009. Appellant was present in person whereas, the respondents were represented by Shri P.K. Jha, CPIO, OICL and Shri R.C. Jain, Chief Executive, GIPSA.
2. Appellant through his RTI-application dated 21.06.2008 raised 4 items of queries which are reproduced below:
i) The marks secured by me in ASCI exercise, interview and CR
ii) The above information in respect of all the candidates who appeared in the exercise including the candidate who is the last in the promotion/seniority list
iii) According to the GIPSA notification dated 24.04.2008, 12 vacancies for the post of General Manager were declared. Why only eleven candidates were promoted?
iv) In the past also, during three previous exercises (excluding present one) how many vacancies were declared, how many candidates were called and how many were finally promoted?
3. CPIO through his communication dated 06.08.2008 transferred the appellant's RTI-application to the Chief Executive Officer, GIPSA as, according to him, the information relative to appellant's RTI-application rested with the GIPSA as holder-of-the-information. GIPSA, in response, declined to part with this information on the ground that they were not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and hence, could not be obligated to provide information under the RTI Act.
4. At the hearing, it emerged that the GIPSA was not actually the holder-of- the-information in this matter. The actual holder-of-the-information was the respondents-OICL, in whose control the information was. GIPSA only maintained the information for OICL.
5. In view of the above, the debate regarding not divulging this information to the appellant under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act is now irrelevant. This brings Page 1 of 2 down the matter to the disclosure of information regarding appellant's RTI-queries as follows:
Item Nos. i), ii) & iv):
CPIO shall, within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order, disclose these items of information to the appellant.
Item No. iii):
This item of query was interrogatory in nature and thus cannot be classified as information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Respondents, nevertheless, in order to satisfy the appellant, were ready to allow him to inspect the relevant file.
In view of the above, it is directed that the CPIO shall issue a notice to the appellant indicating a day, time and place and allow him the access of relevant file. Appellant shall be free to take, on payment of fee, copies or certified copies of documents from the inspected file. This exercise should be completed within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order.
6. Appeal/Complaint disposed of with above directions.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
(A.N. TIWARI) Information Commissioner Page 2 of 2