Information regarding the MoA of GIPSA along with the minutes of meetings etc. were denied by the PIO - The full bench CIC order declaring GIPSA as a ‘public authority’ u/s 2(h) was stayed by Delhi High Court - CIC: matter remanded back to PIO
Information regarding the Memorandum of Association of GIPSA along with the minutes of meetings, minutes of the Board Meetings of the United India Insurance were denied by the PIO - The full bench order of the CIC declaring GIPSA as a ‘public authority’ u/s 2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; was stayed by Delhi High Court in WP (c) no 8041/2010 dated 1/12/2010 which is still pending - CIC: matter remanded back to PIO
1. The appellant, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, has submitted RTI application dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. September 2012, before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi; seeking information relating to the records pertains to the formation of General Insurers’ (Public Sector) Association of India (GIPSA) through total of 13 points.
2. Vide order dated 23 November 2012, CPIO denied the information on point Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,9,10,11,12 & 13 to the appellant on the ground that the GIPSA is a separate entity and information relating to it was not available with the respondent company and also the minutes and other file notings relating to the Board meetings of the respondent company were not accessible to the public as claimed by the respondent company u/s 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; of the RTI Act, 2005 and denied information on point Nos. 6,7 & 8 on the ground that the questions and the answers must share an embryonic relationship, the genus of the application must be one and sub questions can constitute different species of the same genus, in view of that they were not in position to furnish the information on those points. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred appeal dated 9 January 2013, to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Vide order dated 23 January 2013, the FAA upheld the CPIO’S decision on point Nos. 1,2,5,6,7&8 and held that the information sought under point Nos. 3,4,9,10,11,12,&13 was not clear.
3. Being aggrieved and not satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today via videoconferencing. The appellant, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, was present in person and was represented by Shri Amir Singh Pasrich, Advocate. The respondent, Shri Rangarajan, CPIO made submissions from Chennai.
5. The appellant submitted that he is seeking information regarding the Memorandum of Association of GIPSA [General Insurer’s (Public Sector) Association of India] along with the minutes of the GIPSA meetings, minutes of the Board Meetings of the United India Insurance Company Limited which the CPIO denied by providing a reply that the Public authority is not the holder of information sought for about the GIPSA. The appellant further submitted that GIPSA has been declared ‘public authority’ under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 by a full bench of the CIC vide order dated 28/09/2010 in the case no. CIC/DS/A/2010/000349DS. Subsequently a stay order was given by the Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case WP (c) no 8041/2010 dated 1/12/2010 staying specifically to the appointment of the CPIO by the GIPSA. The matter is still pending before the Honorable High Court.
6. The respondents submitted that he is not aware of the latest terms etc. relating to relationship of the GIPSA with the United India Insurance Company Limited and sought some time from the Commission to obtain the information. He was also submitted that he has not received a copy of the second appeal as made by the RTI applicant.
7. The appellant submitted that though he has provided a copy of the second appeal to the CPIO he is ready to email the same again today itself. The CPIO provided his email address at the hearing as email@example.com with CC to firstname.lastname@example.org so that he could get the copy of the second appeal fast to enable him to revert on it expeditiously.
8. The Commission has heard the submissions made by both the parties. The present matter is remanded back to the CPIO with the directions to consult with the department and provide specific and point wise reply to the second appeal as submitted by the appellant. The CPIO is directed to clearly specify the exemptions which he may like to take in the disclosure of information as sought by the appellant along with the relevant Court orders, if any, debar the public authority from the disclosure of information held with the public authority in the present case.
10. The appellant may approach the commission to pursue any non compliance of the present order.
11. Information as above is to be provided within 7 days of receipt of the copy of the second appeal by the CPIO.
Citation: Shri Om Prakash Mishra v. UIICL in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000495/MP