• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ….. F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/01502 Dated, the 30th May, 2008. Appellant : Shri Vinod Surana, 224, NSC Bose Road, Chennai, Pincode : 600 001. Respondents : Shri Venkateswaran, Regional Manager (CRM-I) & CPIO, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, LIC Building, Anna Salai, P.B. No.2450, Chennai – 600 002. Shri B. Manivannan, Zonal Manager & Appellate Authority, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Southern Zonal Office, LIC Building, Anna Salai, P.B. No.2450, Chennai – 600 002. This complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act has been filed by Shri Vinod Surana against the decision of the Appellate Authority (AA), conveyed through CPIO’s communication dated 12.11.2007 and the reply dated 14.09.2007 of the CPIO corresponding to the complainant’s RTI-application dated 20.08.2007. In his RTI-application, the complainant had sought the following information:- “1. Copy of the License for the working of the lift at the above- mentioned address issued by the Inspector of Lifts. 2. Copies of letters from the Inspector of Lift evidencing annual renewal of the license for the above-mentioned period. 3. Copies of any letters / documents from the Electrical Inspectorate (as per the Tamil Nadu Lifts Act) bringing to light any discrepancies in the maintenance of the list. 4. Details of inspections carried out from in respect of the lift in the abovementioned building by LIC as well as the local authorities and copies of the corresponding inspection reports. 5. Which department of LIC ― the Estates Department or the Legal Department ― is responsible for follow up and compliance with the Tamilnadu Lifts Act, 1997? Please furnish copies of documents evidencing the same. 6. Names and designations of the officer(s) of LIC responsible for maintenance and operation on the lift. 7. Copies of internal guidelines regarding ensuring periodical compliance by the Life Insurance Corporation of India with the various rules, regulations concerning its properties including Page 1 of 5 complying with the National Building Code, Tamilnadu Lifts Act, fire & safety requirements etc. issued by various Government Departments.” 2. The CPIO’s communication to the appellant read as follows:- “We are informed by the department concerned that our lift provided at National Insurance Building has completely stopped functioning from March 2007 and it is not fit for running and hence the question of submitting the details asked for by you does not arise.” 3. The Appellate Authority decided as follows:- “We are in receipt of the above cited appeal. In this context, we wish to inform you that the relevant records are not immediately traceable by the Department concerned. We shall revert to you as soon as the same are located.” 4. Parties were called for a hearing on 07.05.2008. Appellant was present through his Counsel, Shri Kalyan Jhabakh, while the respondents requested exemption from appearance at the hearing. 5. The complainant’s point is that there was a concerted attempt by both CPIO and AA to conceal facts regarding compliance by the respondents with the statutory requirements cast on them by the Tamil Nadu Lifts Act, 1997. That was the reason the CPIO evaded answering the complainant’s queries directly by saying that the lift was out-of-commission since March, 2007 and the AA made the evasion worse by saying that the records and documents were not traceable. It is the complainant’s point that since the T.N. Lifts Act makes it obligatory for those operating lifts in given buildings to obtain licences for such operation, to get the lift regularly inspected, pay the annual fee and renew the license each year. Stopping the lift at any given point of time (as mentioned by CPIO) could not lead to any inference about compliance with the TNLA ‘prior’ to the alleged stoppage of the lift’s operation. According to the complainant, the above facts clearly point to the respondents attempting to evade giving a direct answer to the complainant’s queries and hence were liable to penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. 6. Complainant has further pointed out that contrary to the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, the decision in first-appeal-petition was communicated to him under the signature of the CPIO and not the AA, Shri B.Manivannan, Zonal Manager. According to the complainant, it shows that the AA was guided solely by the CPIO and was not independently applying his mind to the task at hand. Page 2 of 5 7. The CPIO, in his written-submission dated 03.04.2008 has stated that the complainant was engaged in a litigation with the L.I.C. and the queries raised by him have had no public interest but had their origins in the complainant’s vested interest. The sole intention of the complainant was to ‘harass’ the officials of L.I.C. and to force wastage of respondents’ resources. This, according to the respondents, was a misuse of the RTI Act. Decision: 8. On perusal of the records filed before the Commission and after hearing the complainant’s submission, it is noted that the questions asked by the complainant through his RTI-application dated 20.08.2007 were specific and queried the respondents about compliance with the statutory obligation cast on them by the T.N. Lifts Act. To reply to such a query with a dismissive “lift has been completely stopped from March, 2007” as was done by the CPIO or “the relevant records are not immediately traceable… shall revert to you as soon as the same are located.” as provided by the AA were undeniably sorry examples of evasive responses. It is unthinkable that a lift shall be operated by a public authority in a public building and no records about abiding by safety standards and complying with licensing conditions would be maintained. If this is how this public authority maintains sensitive and important records, there is case for them to be confronted with serious consequences of their own actions. 9. The plea of the respondents that the appellant was engaged in litigation against them also doesn’t help them. The right of an applicant to seek information is not subject to his having or not having any ongoing litigation with a public authority. The petitioner’s right is defined by the RTI Act and is not subject to the decisions and the whims and fancies of the respondents. 10. The Commission takes serious view of the respondents filing an inane and pointless written-submission before the Commission while they were expected to assist the Commission by informing it as to why they could not provide the requested information to the complainant. Their plea to withhold information on grounds that the appellant was having an ongoing litigation with the respondents, only compounded the misleading and evasive replies the respondents have been giving to the complainant. 11. The T.N. Lifts Act, 1997 was brought into force for the precise purpose of ensuring that those who are using the Lifts are not exposed to the risk of accidents. A duty was cast on the respondents not only to obtain a license for the lift, but also to have it regularly inspected and to renew the license each year. Any citizen of the country has all the right to know from the respondents whether or not they comply with the provisions of the statute. No amount of whining Page 3 of 5 about ongoing litigation and so on will absolve the respondents of the responsibility cast on them both under the T.N. Lifts Act and the RTI Act. 12. The Commission noted that the position taken by the respondents was not only untenable it smacked of imperious notions about their own assumed lofty positions. This is further evidenced by the fact that, as pointed out by the complainant, the Appellate Authority herein, the Zonal Manager considers himself so lofty that he would not even sign the communication as First Appellate Authority to the appellant. It is time these functionaries are taught the virtues of humility. 13. In the light of the above, it is directed that - (i) Summons be issued to the AA, Shri B.Manivannan, Zonal Manager and the CPIO, Shri Venkateswaran to be present for further hearing in the matter on 30.07.2008 at 1200 Noon. (ii) Show-cause notice for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be issued to the CPIO, Shri Venkateswaran for giving misleading and evasive reply to the complainant. Returnable in 2 weeks. (iii) A notice may be issued to the AA, Shri B.Manivannan to explain why he did not sign the decision taken by him in the first-appeal of the complainant in spite of the fact that he was discharging a statutory duty (Section 19(1)), which could not be delegated to others. He should show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. (iv) Show-cause notices (Section 19(8)(b)) be issued to the head of the public authority, viz. Chairman & Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Appellate Authority as to why a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only may not be awarded to the complainant for the harassment and detriment suffered by the complainant due to a) non-serious disposal of the appellant’s RTI-application through giving evasive and misleading response, and b) delayed response by the AA. (v) A direction may issue to the head of the public authority, viz. CMD, LIC to institute an enquiry as to how a file pertaining to statutory compliance by the respondents to the requirement of Page 4 of 5 Tamil Nadu Lifts Act could go missing.

Load more

  5

Copy Link