Central Information CommissionSuresh Chand vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 20 November, 2016Central Information Commission
      Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
                                          website-cic.gov.in

                               Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000979

Appellant                      :       Shri Suresh Chand, Dehradun
Public Authority               :       Life Insurance Corporation of India, Dehradun

Date of Hearing                :       October 5, 2016
Date of Decision               :       October 27, 2016

Present:
Appellant                     :        Represented by Shri Anuj Sharma, Advocate- through VC
Respondents                   :        Shri SK Pathak, Manager (CRM) and Ms Upasana
                                       Chandhiok, Manager (Estate) - through VC

RTI application                :       30.07.2015
CPIO's reply                   :       19.08.2015
First appeal                   :       07.09.2015
FAA's order                    :       28.09.2015
Second appeal                  :       12.04.2016

                                              ORDER1.     Shri Suresh Chand, the appellant, sought information on three points pertaining to the
SCR bearing no. 59/41, Rampur Mandi Marg, Chakrata Road, Dehradun (currently known as
New Connaught Place, Chakrata Road, Dehradun) asking whether it was recorded in the name of
Shri Makkhan Lal, the appellant's father, as tenant thereof, and if the answer was in the
affirmative, he wanted information about the time since when his father's name was recorded in
the LIC records as tenant of the aforementioned SCR, etc.2.      The CPIO provided a point-wise response to the appellant stating that as the matter was
sub-judice, they could not provide information relating to the sameu/s 8(1)(h)of the RTI Act.
Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority stating that no criminal or civil
suit was pending in the matter and the information sought by him does not impede the process of
investigation and that he was in the lawful possession of SCR bearing no. 59/41. The FAA
upheld the CPIO's decision stating that the matter of SCR 59/41, New Connaught Place, Bharat
Estate, Dehradun, was sub-judice and pending before the court of the Learned Estate Officer vide
case number D-49/2003 under thePublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
1971; and therefore, as any intervention at this juncture might tantamount to disadvantage for
one party, the same could not be providedu/s 8(1)(h)of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the
response of the FAA, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission reiterating the points
made in his first appeal and stating that the public authority should be directed to provide the
information sought.3.     The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he wanted
information regarding a building in New Connaught Place, Dehradun. He wanted to know
whether his father's name had been recorded as a tenant in the respondent insurance company's
 records. The appellant contended that after his father's demise, the occupancy devolved upon
him.4.      The respondents submitted that LIC was formed after the consolidation of around 200-
300 private insurance companies in 1956. The records pertaining to the building in question had
been transferred by the Bharat Estate Company to the LIC on such consolidation. They had
already provided their response on the first point accordingly. However, information sought on
the remaining two points was deniedu/s 8(1)(h)of the RTI Act as the related matter was sub-
judice. They informed the Commission that the appellant was an unauthorized occupant who was
defending his claim before the court of the Learned Estate Officer.5.      Upon hearing both the parties, the Commission holds that even though the related-matter
was sub-judice, information pertaining to a dispute before a court of law cannot be deniedu/s
8(1)(h)of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission, in K.M. Talera v. Office of the Cantonment
Board, CIC/AT/A/2006/00193, dated 18.09.2006, held that, "A perusal of the averments of the
appellant and the respondents makes it clear that there has been a serious error by the
respondents in assuming that information in respect of sub-judice matters need not be
disclosed.The RTI Actprovides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice
matters. The only exemption in sub-judice matter is regarding what has been expressly
forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal and what may constitute contempt of
Court:Section 8(1)(b)." The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to provide information
on whether his father was the tenant of the property in question, to the appellant, within 20 days
of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of.(Manjula Prasher)
                                                                    Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy:Dy Registrar


Copy to :The Central Public Information Officer            The First Appellate Authority
LIC of India                                      LIC of India
Divisional Office, Dehradun                       Divisional Office, Dehradun
Jeevan Prakash, Nehru Colony                      Jeevan Prakash, Nehru Colony
Haridwar Road, Dehradun-248 001                   Haridwar Road, Dehradun-248 001


Shri Suresh Chand
S/o Late Shri Makkhan Lal
Ish Mohan Saklani Block
Court Compound, Dehradun