CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01363
Dated, the 19th February, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Archit Kundan Kaushal
Respondents : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
In pursuance of Commission’s notice dated 16.01.2009, this matter came
up for hearing on 18.02.2009. Appellant was absent when called, while the
respondents were present through Shri P.K. Jha, DGM & CPIO and Shri
V.V.Mohlla, Manager.
2. The second-appeal is related to appellant’s RTI-application dated
28.04.2008, CPIO’s reply dated 24.06.2008 and the decision of the Appellate
Authority dated 23.07.2008.
3. According to the appellant, the second-appeal is regarding the following
pieces of information:-
“A) Intimate reasons for pre-mature cancellation of 4 policies by Div.
4, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune during the period under
review i.e. from 26.3.07 to 20.04.08.
B) Supply details of no. of letters / documents delayed for dispatch:
slab wise beginning with 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days and more
than 4 days.”
4. The following decisions are made in respect of the above queries.
Query at ‘A’:
It is not open to the appellant to seek reasons from the respondents
regarding what he describes as premature cancellation of four policies on account
of the fact that apart from being beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act,
this information is also exclusive to third-parties and there is no reason why this
should be allowed to go into the hands of the appellant.
Accordingly, it is directed that there shall be no disclosure obligation for
this item of query.
AT-19022009-02.doc
Page 1 of 2
Query at ‘B’:
I find that the CPIO and the Appellate Authority have provided to the
appellant all the information relating to these queries. Appellant desires to have
this information split into micro-details. I do not consider this at-all necessary
because the respondents are obliged to provide to the appellant information as it
is held by them, which in this case has already been provided to him.
The queries of this nature are clearly frivolous and vexatious designed not
so much to elicit information but to annoy and harass the public authority.
I don’t intend to encourage such petitioners.
5. Appeal disallowed.
6. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2