CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00842
Dated, the 14th November, 2008.
Appellant : Mr. George Mathew
Respondents : The New India Assurance Company Limited
This second-appeal came up for hearing on 12.11.2008. Appellant was
present through his Counsel, Mr.N.M. Varghese, while the respondents were
present through Mr.A.K. Malhotra, Deputy Manager, Mr.P.K. Sinha, Chief
Manager and Mr.Pradip Kumar, Branch Manager.
2. Through his RTI-application dated 07.04.2008, appellant, Mr.George
Mathew had made the four queries to the Branch Manager, The New India
Assurance Company Ltd, Thiruvananthapuram. For the sake of clarity, these
queries are reproduced below:-
“1. Had your predecessor-in-office Mr.V.T. Thomaskutty, NOT
(handwritten) conferred with the authority of allotting two cases
OP.436/05 & OP.128/06 pending before the CDR. Forum to the
undersigned, if so, Have you sought any clarification in writing
from V.T. Thamaskutty?
2. Now your Legal Manager (RO) vide his letter no.ERO/RTI/07-08
dt.11-3-08 (handwritten) informed me that the cases would be
withdrawn by getting the NOC. Have you received the No
Objection Certificate from the undersigned in OP.436/05? And
how did you file fresh vakalath violating the interdict in the Civil
Rule of practice?
3. Your RO. Manager further stated in the above referred letter that
you are bound to write the reasons in writing while withdrawing
the cases. Have you written any reason and the date of such
recording and What prevented you in not informing me in writing
the reasons?
4. Are you aware that the cases were thrust upon me by your
predecessor-in-office as he felt the unlawful interference of
officials in your office betraying the interest of the company which
can be borne out from my cross-examination of the petitioner in
OP.128/06?”
3. The CPIO and the Appellate Authority, through their orders dated
15.04.2008 and 06.05.2008 respectively, declined to disclose the requested
Page 1 of 2
information on the ground that these were queries in the nature of seeking
explanations and reasons from the respondents and were outside the scope of
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
4. In his written-submission to the Commission, appellant has questioned the
conclusions of the respondents. Much of what he has stated as grounds of appeal
relate to impeaching the procedure adopted by the respondents in answering
these queries, lack of application of mind, absence of impartiality in their
approach among others.
5. The short-point for decision in this matter is whether the queries made by
the appellant in his RTI-application qualify to be information under Section 2(f)
of the RTI Act. Regardless of what the appellant had stated in his
written-submission, these queries and his submissions together amount to
engaging the respondents in an ongoing dialogue about some of the presumptions
which the appellant seems to have. It is true that respondents have taken certain
decisions in cases mentioned by the appellant in his RTI-application. Through
these queries now under the RTI Act appellant wishes to interrogate the
respondents regarding those decisions. RTI provides no scope for such
interrogatory queries.
6. In view of the above, it is not possible to sustain the appellant’s case
against the respondents, which is rejected. Appeal closed
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2