Central Information Commission
Ram Krishna Singh vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 4 April, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/LICOI/A/2023/606520
Ram Krishna Singh .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
LIC of India, Goa Divisional Office,
Jeevan Viswas, EDC Complex,
Patto Panaji, Goa - 403001 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 01-04-2024
Date of Decision : 03-04-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13-12-2022
CPIO replied on : 12-01-2023
First appeal filed on : 12-01-2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 03-02-2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13-12-2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 6
"1. What are the criteria of Allotment of Agent and Eligibility criteria of Development Officers?
2. Which Branches allotment of direct agents are pending in Goa Division in Financial year 2022-2023? What are the reasons for not allotting agents?
3. Is there any Maximum time is prescribed for submitting Consent Letter of Agents and Development Officer? If Yes Kindly provide details
4. Is Branch In-charge (BM/SBM) competent authority of allotment of Agents? If yes kindly provide any circular
5. Can branch In-charge start fresh allotment process while old one is pending with him? If yes kindly provide details
6. What are the possible reasons Allotment of Agent is pending? (Consent Letters of Development Officers and that of Allottable agents are submitted to branch). Are any other documents required?
7. Is allotment of agent is discretionary power of competent authority? If yes, provide details.
In LIC Branch 91E, Vasco-Da-Gama, Allotment of Agent process started in Branch. Eligible Development Officers and Some allottable agent submitted consent letters (Date 22/07/2022). It has been more than 4 months since the allotment of agent is pending with competent authority without any action. We would like to know what the possible reasons are for this case. (hereby we are attaching inward receipt of letters) For Knowing status request of this Allotment case Development officers also given letter to the Branch (Status request letter) but there is no response yet. If there are any rules regarding giving any response (within timespan) kindly provide that circular also."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 12-01-2023 stating as under:
"Point No. 1:
As per the relevant circular, it is stated that the Agents becoming direct owing to exit of Development officers can be allotted to Confirmed Development officers and PDOs subject to agent not being appointed as Direct agent and not appointed as UCA, agent has not qualified as MDRT Page 2 of 6 at any time during last 3 years and agent has not brought in an average FPI of 10 lakhs and above.
The Development officer becomes eligible for allotment of agents only if there is a net addition of at least 2 agents in his/her organization at the end of last financial year or the Development officer has recruited and activated at least 5 agents in the previous financial year or the Development officer has recruited and activated at least 5 agents during the current financial year till the end of previous month of allotment.
Point No. 2:
As informed by the Deemed CPIO, Manager (Sales), Divisional office, Goa, allotment of Agents is pending for Branches 91F-Mapusa, 93A- Ponda & 91E Vasco for the financial year 2022-23. There are no applications pending at Division for allotment for financial year 2022-23. For the second query, no information can be provided as per sec 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Point No. 3:
The relevant circular states that "care should be taken to ensure that allottable Agents, requiring the assistance of a development officer be allotted within a period of one month from the date the Agent becomes direct".
Point No. 4:
As per the relevant circular, Manager (Sales) of Divisional office is the competent authority for allotment of agents.
Point No. 5:
As per the relevant circular, the process of allotment shall be undertaken twice in the financial year in the Branch.
Point No. 6:
No information can be provided as per sec 6(1) of RTI Act 2005.
Point No. 7:
Allotment of Agents is done as per the relevant circular.
For further queries raised by you, as informed by the Deemed CPIO, the Senior Branch Manager of Vasco Branch, the consent letters from agents were received on 22.07.2022, well beyond the prescribed time limit of 09.06.2022 and the development officers were informed that a second Page 3 of 6 round would be conducted towards the end of the year. Hence no action was taken on the letters received on 22.07.2022. The process of allotment is in progress at branch."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12-01-2023. The FAA vide its order dated 03-02-2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO, held as under:
"The RTI application was registered online by the applicant (Reg. No. LICWZ/R/E/22/00117) on 13/12/2022 and CPIO has given information online for the same on 12/01/2023, which is the 30th day as per online module of RTI Act (i.e. within prescribed time limit of 30 days for disposal of RTI application). The CPIO has sought information to RTI queries of the above RTI application under Section 5 (4) & Section 5(5) of RTI Act, 2005 from the deemed PIOs. The CPIO/Deemed PIOs have neither disclosed the RTI applicant's name nor have tried to revoke the RTI application as alleged by the applicant. I stand by the reply given by CPIO, vide letter dated 12/01/2023."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Shri Anna Saheb B Naik, CPIO appeared through audio conference The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply as per the records available with them vide letter dated 12.01.2023. They further submitted that information sought by the appellant was in the form of seeking clarification/ explanations /opinion/ advice regarding administrative procedure followed by their Branch for allotment of eligible agents to Development Officer who were entitled for such allotment. As per the respondent, the appellant has expected that the CPIO would interpret his situational queries and provide the information.Page 4 of 6
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the respondent has provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 12.01.2023. The FAA vide order dated 03.02.2023 upheld the CPIO's reply. The respondent during the hearing submitted that the appellant has sought clarification/ explanations /opinion/ advice regarding administrative procedure followed by their Branch for allotment of eligible agents to Development Officer. Perusal of the RTI application reveals that the appellant has sought some clarifications and opinion from the CPIO which does not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011 wherein following observations were made:
"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. 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......."
In view of the above observations and the reply given by the respondent, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given to the appellant and interference from the Commission is not called for at this stage.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Date: 03-04-2024 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)