Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 171
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
SOHAN LAL WAHI – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent
CIC/BKOBD/A/2023/110616
Information requested under the Right to Information Act must fall within its purview; if not, the appeal cannot be sustained.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the agency status of VIJAYA BANK with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - CPIO responded that the information sought does not fall within the purview of the Act - The FAA upheld the CPIO's response - The Commission found the issues raised in the appeal identical to a previous case, leading to dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 1-8)
(B) Right to Information - The information requested must fall within the scope of the Act for disclosure - The Commission emphasized that if the information does not meet the criteria, the appeal cannot be sustained. (Paras 2, 3, 8)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant sought information regarding the agency status of VIJAYA BANK as an agent for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for Mediclaim policies from 2008 to 2019. The CPIO stated that the information requested did not fall under the Act, and the FAA upheld this decision.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found no merit in the appeal as the issues were previously resolved and upheld the CPIO's response.
Issues: The main issues were whether the information sought was covered under the Right to Information Act and the adequacy of the responses provided by the CPIO and FAA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the information sought by the Appellant did not fall within the purview of the Act, and similar issues had been previously adjudicated, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.03.2022 seeking information on the following points:
- (i) Kindly intimate me that VIJAYA BANK, Amritsar was an authorized agent of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., for. sale of Mediclaim. Insurance Policy of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in the year 01-04-2008 to 31-03-2019: (ii) Kindly intimate me the date of appointment of VIJAYA BANK, Amritsar as an agent of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., for sale of Mediclaim Insurance Policy. (iii) Kindly intimate.me the agency given to VIJAYA BANK, Amritsar was for permanent forever and for some limited period.
- (iv) Kindly intimate me if the agency given to VIJAYA BANK, Amritsar was for limited period, so kindly intimate me the date from which the agency of VIJAYA BANK start and upto which date the said agency was valid/closed.
- (v) Kindly intimate me United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was automatically renewing the agency of the Bank on due date or the Bank have to apply for renewal of its agency. …, etc./ other related information 2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.06.2022 and the same is reproduced as under:- (i) The said information does not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the aforesaid act.
- (ii) Erstwhile Vijaya Bank acted as a Corporate Agent of United India Insurance from 25th May 2010 to 31st March 2019.
- (iii) The said information does not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the aforesaid act.
- (iv) As mentioned in point no. 2. (v) The said information does not fall within the purview of section 2(f) of the aforesaid act. ..Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.07.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 10.08.2022 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 03.03.2023. 5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Manish, Officer, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that a proper reply had not been provided.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that point-wise reply to the RTI application had been furnished to the appellant.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the issues raised in the present appeal are identical to those in the appeal no. CIC/BKOBD/A/2022/139973 disposed of by this Bench on 02.02.2024. Therefore, the issues having attained finality, there appears to be no useful purpose in prolonging the matter. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
