Central Information Commission
Santosh R Bhat vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 8 October, 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/2023/129693
Santosh R Bhat .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
LIC of India, RTI Cell,
Central Office, 5th Floor,
West Wing Yogakshema, Jeevan
Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400021 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.10.2024
Date of Decision : 08.10.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2022
CPIO replied on : 24.11.2022
First appeal filed on : 28.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 07.02.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 05.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking the following information:Page 1 of 9
"1. Balance sheet of LIC (Employees) Pension Fund for the year ending 31.03.2008 to 31.03.2022 each year i.e. separately for 15 years
2. Income and Expenditure Account Statement of LIC (Employees) Pension Fund for the years from 2007-08 to 2021-22 every year i.e. separately for 15 years"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2022 stating as under:
"Information for point no.1 &2: The information sought by the applicant is not compiled at this office of public authority as the same is not required for the day to day functioning. Hence the information cannot be provided as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, for the purpose of this RTI application, collecting and collating of the information from all the offices will disproportionately divert the limited resources of this public Authority as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, 1 quote herein below the relevant decision of "Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Sec. Education & ... vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. Appeal No. 6454 of 2011" is quoted as under:-
"The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of information' and right to information' under clauses (f) and
(j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non- available information and then furnish it to an applicant."
A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing inferences, and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or advise in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority......
Page 2 of 9........Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of Public Authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 07.02.2023, held as under:
"After going through the reply of the CPIO and based on the response received from the concerned Department, it is observed that CPIO has used the words 'collecting and collating instead of using the expression culling out of the records by this public authority. What CPIO wanted to say is that the information in the shape of 15 statements from the year 2008 to 2022 is not available with this office of the Public Authority as a ready record as the same is not required for the day today working of this Public authority. In his appeal, the Appellant has mentioned and further clarified that he wanted separate 15 yearly statements. After this clarification, we have again referred the matter to the deemed PIO and based on the response received from them, we have to state that culling out the records for a period of 15 years is not only time consuming, it would also disproportionately divert the resources of public authority as per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In this context, I quote herein below the relevant CIC decision
1.Sridharan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of... on 4 January, 2021 Second Appeal No. CIC/LICOI/A/2019/639155 "In the present case, the CPIO has categorically indicated that the information in the format sought by the appellant is neither compiled by the LIC nor is there any regulatory requirement for the same. Hence, it Page 3 of 9 cannot be provided to the appellant. This legal principle is supported by the decision dated 07-01-2016 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in LPA 24/2015 & CM No. 965/2015 titled as The Registrar of Supreme Court of India v. Commodore Lokesh K Batra & Ors., wherein, it was held as under:-
"15. On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(1). it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, "right to information" under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of."
In the current competitive scenario, it is also true that had the data been readily available as a record, the same would have exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act,2005 and disclosure of data as sought by the appellant on important parameters of financial status of Pension Fund would not have been revealed.
In today's highly competitive Life Insurance market, if our business practices etc., which we have been developed by spending considerable resources, are simply obtained through the forum of RTI, which is primarily meant for the citizens of this country but not to be used for culling out data, delving deep into record to provide information, without stating any proven larger public interest, makes this Public Authority adopt an approach whereby our commercial interests are protected.
Hence had the data been available it would have been exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 as the information would involve commercial confidence. The appellant is attempt to access sensitive and important information from the organization regarding pension scheme prevailing in the Corporation.
Moreover there are various cases regarding pension matter which are sub-judice before the various High Courts.
In view of the above mentioned contentions, it is pertinent to point out that the environment under which the Public Authority operates is very important while deciding about the commercial confidence, intellectual Page 4 of 9 property and other exemption under Sec. 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The environment, especially the micro environment is dynamic and keeps on changing and evolving continuously.
It is noteworthy that this Public Authority is not merely having governance related RTI queries but also queries relating to its commercial operations which have to be viewed. keeping in mind the competitive scenario in which this Public authority is operating. Many of changes have occurred since 2019 in the business environment which this Public Authority is facing.
The disclosure of such data may hamper the competitive position of this Public Authority adversely. Hence, in view of the changed circumstances the disclosure of such data, had it been available would have been exempted under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005.
These data if culled out after delving into its records for the purpose of providing information can be used against this Public Authority in a manner which cannot be foreseen by this Public Authority at this stage.
As per extant policy of the public authority, the information, (had it been readily available)would not have been provided to the appellant under the present RTI Application with a view to protect its sensitive and important data for any such future uses to avoid any contingent and unseen losses etc in the future..
The attention of the applicant is invited to the relevant excerpts of the following CIC decisions:
1. CIC/SA/C/2015/000021, CIC/SA/C/2015/000033 Vijay Prakash Gupta vs. Dwarka Courts, Delhi "The Commission observes that the complainant has filed several RTI applications in the past and recently vide CIC order No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000965 dated 3/3/2015, the complainant was warned by the Commission not to misuse the RTI Act by running a parallel inquiry against the Courts where his cases are pending for trial. Once the appellant is subjected to the jurisdiction of the Court of law, either as a petitioner or respondent, he will have to follow and complete that process in a Court of law The common sense and the common law explains that a citizen cannot run the processes for two remedies at a time, on the same subject matter, each of which will obstruct the other.Page 5 of 9
The action of the appellant in seeking information through the RTI Act about a case pending for trial in a court of law, without attending the court, reflects malicious intention and it would amount to obstruction in the legal proceedings and also disrespect to the process of adjudication. With the above observations, the Commission rejects both the above complaints."
I reiterate that the CPIO has complied with the provisions of RTI Act fully. Upholding the decision of the CPIO, I dispose of the appeal dated 28.12.2022 of Shri Santosh R.Bhat.
This order is passed after the expiry of 30 days and within 45 days due to office exigencies. The delay thus recorded as per the provisions of Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through VC.
Respondent: Smt. Madhavi Tari, CPIO-cum-Secretary, attended the hearing through VC.
The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. He further reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 22.09.2024.
The Respondent submitted that the Appellant in the instant RTI Application has sought information for 15 years which is voluminous in nature and collecting and collating of such information from all the offices will disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Public Authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. He added that upon receipt of the hearing notice form the Commission, their office had written an email dated 25.09.2024, wherein the Appellant was asked to inspect the relevant records by visiting their office on 27.09.2024 or 01.10.2024, but the Appellant did not avail the same. He further advised the Appellant to refer their Annual Report wherein a much-detailed information has been disclosed in public domain in compliance to Section 4 of the RTI Act.Page 6 of 9
A copy of written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 22.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
"I have already submitted second appeal explaining the grounds of challenge to the Order of the First Appellate Authority upholding the decision of the CPIO. However, this written submission is done in brief in support of my claim.
1. I had submitted online RTI application on 27.10.2022 vide Reference No. LICOI/R/E/22/00797 seeking the following information.
1. Balance sheet of LIC (Employees) Pension Fund for the year ending 31.03.2008 to 31.03.2022 each year i.e. separately for 15 years
2. Income and Expenditure Account Statement of LIC (Employees) Pension Fund for the years from 2007-08 to 2021-22 every year i.e. separately for 15 years."
2. The CPIO disposed of my request vide letter dated 24.11.2022 quoting Section 2(f) and Section 7(9) of RTI Act, as grounds for not providing the information.
3. I preferred an appeal against the decision vide online appeal with the First Appellate Authority on 28.12.2022 vide application reference No.LICOI/A/E/22/00127.
4. The First Appellate Authority Disposed of my appeal upholding the decision of CPIO vide his order Ref: LICOI/A/E/22/00127 dated 07.02.2023.
5. Hence, I submitted the Second Appeal to the Honourable Central Information Commission vide my letter dated 05.07.2023 detailing the grounds of my challenge.
6. The information sought by me is readily available in the records of LIC and hence CPIO's ground for rejection under Section 2(f) and Section 7(9) of RTI Act are not applicable in this case.
7. I am a pension optee who is covered under LIC Pension Rules 1995. Further, I have not taken employment anywhere after my retirement from LIC & solely depend on the Pension amount for the livelihood of self and my family. As a stakeholder in LIC's Employees' Pension Fund, I am interested in the statements for my personal analysis and also in the larger interest of the pensioners. Moreover, the CPIO has already provided the information of similar nature in the past for the year ending 31.03.2021.
8. The Honourable Central Information Commission has ordered CPIO of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Mumbai to provide similar statement in case of Appeal vide order No. CIC/NIACL/A/2021/115428 dated 18.10.2022 which may be taken into consideration while deciding my appeal in this case.
9. In view of my above submissions, I request the Honourable Commission to consider my appeal and pass appropriate order for providing the information sought under my application."
A copy of written submission has been received from Shri Bichitra Mahapatra, Executive Director-cum-RTI Appellate authority, vide letter dated 27.09.2024, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:
Page 7 of 9"Submission before Hon'ble CIC:
The appellant has raised 2nd appeal to the CIC. We now humbly submit before the Hon'ble CIC that: The information called for by the appellant, Shri Santosh Bhatt is same as that was called for by another appellant Shri CH Mahadevan. Hence based on the CIC decision dated 08.08.2024 given in case of Shri CH Mahadevan under file nos. CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119449, CIC/LICOI/A/2023/119916 and CIC/LICOI/A/2023/148398, we had invited the appellant Shri Bhatt for "the inspection of records". The letter dated 25.09.2024 intimating the said decision was sent to his email requesting him to visit LIC, Central Office, F&A (the information holder department) to inspect the desired records. Copy of the same is attached herewith for ready reference.
In the light of the above, we humbly request the Hon'ble Information Commissioner to dismiss summarily the second appeal dated 05.07.2023 filed by Shri Santosh Bhatt."
Decision:
Now, in the instant case, the Commission cannot lose sight of the fact that the information sought in the instant RTI Application pertains to a period of 15 years, and the Respondent has rightly contended that such information is voluminous in nature and collecting and collating of information from all the offices will disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Public Authority as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, upon receipt of the hearing notice form the Commission, the Respondent has provided an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the relevant records in their office, but the Appellant did not turn up for the same. During the hearing, the Appellant kept on insisting on providing the information in hard copy. The Commission directs the CPIO to facilitate a last opportunity of inspection of the available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date & time but within six weeks. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record, the CPIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO free of cost up to 20 pages, for pages exceeding this limit, CPIO may charge prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. The above directions Page 8 of 9 shall be complied with by the CPIO within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The First Appellate Authority is directed to ensure the compliance of the above order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA ED(RTI) LIC Of India, RTI Cell, Central Office, 5th Floor, West Wing Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)