Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Commission while disposing of the second appeal vide its decision dated 09.09.2011 made the following observations:

"4. After hearing the respondent and on perusal of relevant documents, the Commission observes that the appellant sought legal opinion from respondent; the same is not covered within the ambit of the definition of 'information' as laid down in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of respondent."

6.2. In Sarojini Devi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [CIC/LICOI/A/2017/1769933-BJ], the appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.08.2017 seeking information on 05 points regarding the modified policy and practice of LIC in view of the Supreme Court Judgment which had held in 2014 that no Government Department/ Government Corporation will apply Public Premises Act (PP Act) to protected tenants who were in possession of the premises before 1958, list of cases under trial by LIC Estate Officer under PP Act which had been discharged/ cancelled by LIC and premises returned to rightful protected tenant in light of the above mentioned Supreme Court Judgment, etc. The Commission vide its decision dated 05.04.2019 while disposing of the second appeal and while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (decided on January 4, 2010) made the following observations.