Applicant: PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(h), means that the information was available while the FAA has informed that the said information was not required to be preserved for more than 3 years - CIC: confirm that no such document is in existence

Rules laid down by LIC in acceptance & non acceptance of third party cheques for payment of premium etc. were sought - Applicant: PIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, means the information was available while the FAA has informed that the said information was not required to be preserved for more than 3 years as per their record retention schedule - Respondents informed CIC that they did not have any such documents - CIC: the respondents to again confirm their position that there is no document in existence as sought by the appellant in his RTI application

Facts:

1.The appellant, Shri M D Seshadri, submitted RTI application dated 15 June 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bangalore; seeking information regarding rules laid down by LIC in acceptance and non acceptance of third party cheques for payment of premium etc., through a total of 6 points.

2. Vide reply dated 12 July 2013, CPIO denied the information u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, 2005 as the same matter was pending before two different judicial body. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 23 July 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information sought by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 20 August 2013, FAA furnished the information on point nos. 1, 5 & 6 and denied information on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 on the ground that the requested information was not required to be preserved for more than 3 years, hence, the same was not available with them.

3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard today. The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply provided on point nos. 2, 3 & 4 as the information sought in those points was denied to the appellant. He also submitted that there was a contradiction in the replies given by the CPIO and FAA respectively as the CPIO had denied the said information u/s 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, means the information was available with the public authority but he chose not to disclose it to the appellant. The FAA had taken a different stand for not furnishing the information that the said information was not required to be preserved for more than 3 years as per their record retention schedule, hence, the same was not available with them. He also alleged that the respondents had destroyed the documents to shield their colleague.

5. The respondents submitted that they had never said that the documents had been destroyed, but stated just the official position of record retention schedule followed by them in such cases. They also submitted that after the FAA’s order, the appellant filed a criminal case against the respondents and during the pendency of suit when the said documents were sought by the Court, they realized that the they did not have any such documents. They also submitted that the rules laid down by LIC in acceptance and non acceptance of third party cheques for payment of premium etc. as sought by the appellant is applicable to all the branches and there were no separate procedure for any particular Branch. They finally submitted the documents sought by the appellant was non exiting documents.

6. The Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents, however, it directs the respondents to again confirm their position that there is no document in existence as sought by the appellant in his RTI application to him with intimation to the Commission within 3 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri M D Seshadri v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002023/MP