Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs The Central Information ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1698 Del

19
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      DECIDED ON: 27.04.2009
+                  W.P. (C) 8708/2008

      LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF
      INDIA & ORS.                                      ..... Petitioners
                      Through: Mr. Kamal Mehra, Advocate.

                  versus


      THE CENTRAL INFORMATION
      COMMISSION & ORS.                                ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. K.K. Nigam, Advocate for CIC.

Ms. Meenakashi, Advocate for Resp-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

%

1. Issue rule. Ms. Meenakashi, counsel for second respondent, waives

notice of rule. With consent the petition was heard finally.

2. In these proceedings, an order of the Central Information Commission

(CIC) dated 24.10.2008, imposing penalty under Section 20 to the extent of

Rs.25,000/- on the present petitioners coupled with direction to initiate

departmental proceedings against them, has been impugned. The detailed

facts are not being discussed in view of the order proposed.

3. The second respondent, apparently a tenant of the petitioner applied

on several occasions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) seeking

diverse kind of information. In the course of one such application on

20.8.2007, he queried about a sanction pertaining to the lift installed in a

building owned by the LIC of India at Chennai. The Public Information Officer

had passed an order on 14.9.2007. The second respondent appealed to the

appellate authority. During the pendency of proceedings before the

appellate authority, he apparently received a communication dated

12.11.2007 stating that the records would be searched and the matter would

possibly take some time. On 24.11.2007, feeling aggrieved by what he

perceived to be a deliberate action on the part of the LIC, the second

respondent complained to the CIC under Section 18 (3), alleging non-

compliance with the terms of the order. The application was premised on the

letter dated 12.11.2007 itself being a concession that information was

available though not given to him.

4. The CIC issued notice and heard the parties. Eventually by its detailed

order dated 24.10.2008, it concluded that the LIC and the two officers

against whom notices were issued under Section 19 were guilty of not

furnishing the information within time. It, therefore, directed compensation -

payment of Rs.25,000/- as penalty and further required LIC to initiate

departmental proceedings against the appellate authority Mr. B.

Manivannan.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions. The relevant part

of the impugned order is as follows: -

"28. An analysis of the RTI-application will establish that the applicant was not asking as to whether the lift was functioning or not functioning, or whether it was fit for running. The complainant had asked for copies of documents clearly specified by him. There was no ambiguity in the queries. The response given by the CPIO was entirely unrelated to what had been asked for by the applicant and hence wholly irrelevant. The applicant had asked for the copies of the documents and other particulars about running of the lift, while the CPIO's reply was informing that the lift had completely stopped functioning and that it is not fit for running. Reply was wholly incongruent with the queries.

29. The circumstances under which the information was withheld from the appellant leads to a strong inference that the CPIO has denied the information on a ground which has no relevance either to the facts-in- issue or the law. The RTI-application has been handled casually and in a most perfunctory way. The manner in which the RTI-application has been disposed of by the CPIO is evidence enough that this he has done knowingly. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission is of the opinion that the CPIO has knowingly and without any reasonable cause, given misleading information to the applicant and has, therefore, rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. In the instant case, the RTI- application was submitted on 20.08.2007 and the information requested is yet to be provided. The Commission, therefore, orders imposition of maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, which shall be recoverable in three monthly installments, i.e. Rs.8,000.00 each for the first two months and, Rs.9,000/- for the last / third month, to be recovered from the salary of st the CPIO, beginning with 1 December, 2008. The methods of recovery of the penalty amount and crediting it, is contained in the guideline enclosed to this order as Annexe. The head of the public authority, viz. the Chairman, LIC shall report compliance to the Commission within 1 week of having effected the recovery of each installment."

6. It is not disputed by the petitioners that information as sought was not

furnished at all till the proceedings were initiated by the CIC. In fact, the

final order of the CIC also records this. In these circumstances, the argument

made about the fact that the lift had stopped operating since 2007, cannot

be termed as satisfying the requirements of the Application.

7. To pointed queries, specific answers with relevant particulars have to

be given; in case such information is not available, even that too has to be

disclosed. Neither course of action was adopted in this case. The LIC's

arguments that the CIC could not have converted a complaint proceedings

into an appellate proceedings and gone ahead by issuing notices under

Section 19, does not appeal to this Court. Although the right to approach

through separate channels appears to be distinct nevertheless if the forum

before whom the power is vested happens to possess it - in this case the CIC

undoubtedly possessed it, ipso facto would not render an order imposing

penalty a nullity or irregularity. The reason for this is that in case one of the

authorities conveys to the information seeker an impression that the facts or

the information sought would be furnished and does not chose to do so, this

expose it to action under Section 18 (3). If in fact the information is not so

available, it is open to the information seeker to also file a second appeal

under Section 19. In both instances, he can approach the CIC. In the

present case the second respondent did so by chosing the route of a

complaint under Section 18 (3) on 24.11.2007. Till notice was issued on that

complaint for 7.5.2008, the petitioner LIC in fact did not decide the first

appeal pending before it. In the circumstances, the CIC chose to combine its

powers under Section 18 & 19 and thereafter proceeded to pass orders as it

did. The situation would have been different if the appellate authority had

taken cognizance of the matter and the some proceedings had been initiated

before it or orders were awaited by it. In such circumstances, it can be

arguably said that exercise of powers by CIC would be unjustified. Here no

record of proceedings by the first appellate authority or any order by it within

the time CIC took cognizance of the matter, were shown to the Court. In

these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that CIC's order is not vulnerable

to challenge on the ground of illegality.

8. As far as the direction contained in the CIC order from para 31 to 48

are concerned, this Court is of the opinion that having decided the complaint

and closed the matter by imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the concerned

party, CIC was anguished by the manner in which the information request

was handled and recommended the action impugned. While in the facts of

this particular case, the circumstances may highlight, adversely the conduct

or omission of one or other officer, quasi judicial tribunals such as the CIC

while exercising their powers are circumscribed by the express provisions of

the Act. In the facts of this case, none of the provisions of the RTI should not

have been invoked by the CIC to make directions of the kind as made, or

recommend in the detailed manner as is found in the impugned part of the

order. Therefore, the discussion in para 31-48 of the impugned order and the

consequent directions cannot be sustained.

9. For the above reasons, the writ petition has to succeed in part. The CIC's

requirement that the LIC should consider the matter and initiate appropriate

proceedings and report to it within a time bound manner is accordingly set

aside. The rest of the order shall remain undisturbed. The time given for

compliance in the order insofar as payment is concerned is hereby enlarged

to six weeks from today. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above

terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT JUDGE APRIL 27, 2009 /vd/