CIC: FAA has not taken due care in passing the order - CIC: FAA cautioned for not giving proper information to the complainant in as much as he should have intimated the outcome of the inquiry to the person on whose complaint the inquiry was initiated
1. The appellant, Shri Subhasis Swain, submitted RTI application dated 24 July 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuttak seeking information regarding details of complaint made by Human Right Watch against Mr. Manmohan Pande, Ex CM, LIC, Angul about the suicide of one Mr. Patro etc., through 1 point.
2. Vide reply dated 26 August 2013, CPIO addressed the complainant to confirm if he had submitted the RTI application as it was unsigned. Without confirming the position, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 12 September 2013 before the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 30 September 2013, FAA held that the information sought by the appellant was personal information and disclosure of the same had no relationship to any public activity and could not be provided u/s 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005..
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that information sought was in larger public interest and hence it can be provided. The appellant stated that he had confirmed twice that he had lodged the complaint and forwarded the same to the respondents and the PIO had given confirmation also. The respondents submitted that the complaint was closed on 26.8.2013 as the complainant did not come forward to respond to their letters dated 1.8.2013 and 20.8.2013 sent through speed post and that they had not received any confirmation letter sent by the appellant. They received the first appeal and responded to that. During the hearing, however, they stated that an officer was entrusted the inquiry and the complaint was closed on the basis of his report. The respondent submitted that it was personal information and information sought for was not in the larger public interest.
5. The Commission finds that the FAA has not taken due care in passing the order and he is hereby cautioned for not giving proper information to the complainant in as much as he should have intimated the outcome of the inquiry to the person on whose complaint the inquiry was initiated . The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Subhasis Swain v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No.CIC/MP/A/2013/000047