Information pertaining to the names of advocates engaged by LIC of India to argue the appeals was denied u/s 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act - CIC: Provide the names of advocates empanelled by LIC along with the total professional fee paid to them
7 Sep, 2016ORDER
1. The appellant, Shri Tarlochan Singh Sethi submitted RTI application dated 27.02.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ludhiana seeking information pertaining to the names of advocates engaged by LIC of India, Ludhiana to file/argue the appeals of 2006 Nos. 931 & 932, 2003-04 and 933 for 2003-04 before the I.T.A.T. Chandigarh and names of advocates to whom professional fee was paid by LIC for conducting the above noted three appeals, through two points.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 29.03.2014 denied information u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act being third party information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 04.04.2014 before the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA vide order dated 07.05.2014 while upholding the reply of the CPIO held that disclosure of information would cause undue invasion in the privacy of third party. Moreover, the appellant had not established any larger public interest for divulging the information to him.
3. Thereafter the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that the information was denied by the respondents u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act. The respondents stated that the information sought by the appellant pertained to third party and he is also an advocate and in the same profession (taxation), the information is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (j) of the RTI Act.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide the names of advocates empanelled by the LIC of India at Ludhiana during the financial year 2007-08 along with the total professional fee paid to the empanelled advocates during 2007-08 within one week of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Tarlochan Singh Sethi v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/001089