Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 279 (MP)

NAVNEET LADKE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017-02-21

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2017
ORDER : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to disclose the information as required by the petitioner in Annexure P/1. It is also prayed that the order dated 25/04/2013 (Annexure P/2), order dated 29/07/2013 (Annexure P/3) and the order dated 12/11/2014 (Annexure P/4) be set aside and the respondent no.4 be directed to disclose the information under the Right to Information Act. 2. The facts, in narrow compass, are that the petitioner claims that he is a law abiding citizen and also actively participates in social activities. It is stated that he has come to know that the respondent no. 5 who is holding the post of Joint Director in the Department of Public Relations had given the advertisement of more than 15 crores to the newspapers and magazines which was not existed and registered. 3. He also submitted that according to his information the appointment of respondent no.5 on the said post is illegal and it is a backdoor entry as procedure for appointment has not been followed. He further submits that the promotion and other benefits were also wrongly given to the respondent no.5. In this background, he filed an application under Order 6 (Rule 1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred as the 'Act'). The information desired by the petitioner have been mentioned from clause 6.1 to 6.10 of the application (Annexure P/1). The Public Relation Officer rejected the application of the petitioner by order dated 29/07/2013 (Annexure P/3) stating that the information sought by the petitioner relates to personal information of the respondent no.5 and the same has no relationship to any public activity or interest and, therefore, the same was denied to be supplied to the petitioner. 4. The said order was challenged in the First Appeal before the respondent no.3/appellate authority under the Act. The said authority also rejected the appeal stating that the information demanded by him falls within the ambit of personal information. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal under section 19 (3) of the Act before the respondent no.2. The said order was challenged in the First Appeal before the respondent no.3/appellate authority under the Act. The said authority also rejected the appeal stating that the information demanded by him falls within the ambit of personal information. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal under section 19 (3) of the Act before the respondent no.2. The second appeal has also been rejected relying on the provisions of section 8 (1)(j) of the Act and also relying on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr. and ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 . 5. Counsel for the petitioner on the very first hearing of the petition confined his request for obtaining information's only in respect of information's sought at serial nos. 7 and 8 of Annexure P/1 and submitted that he would not demand the supply of the other information's. He confined the petition only in respect of information's at serial nos. 7 and 8 of Annexure P/1. Considering the aforesaid submission, this Court passed the order dated 18/11/2016 which is reproduced as under:- "18/11/2016 Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Advocate for the respondents/State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information's sought under R.T.I at Item No. 7 & 8 (Annexure P-1) do not fall within the purview of the Section 8 of the R.T.I. Act for not disclosing the same. Leaned Panel Advocate for the State prays for and is granted three weeks time to file additional reply. List the matter after three weeks." 6. The respondents filed the reply and supported the orders passed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 7. In view of the specific query made by this Court regarding serial nos. 7 and 8 information's sought by the petitioner, the respondents stated that since the petitioner has not disclosed as to why the information is being sought and, therefore, the authority did not get satisfy that the information sought in serial nos. 7 and 8 would have any relationship to any public activity or public interest hence, the authorities have rightly rejected the application. 8. 7 and 8 would have any relationship to any public activity or public interest hence, the authorities have rightly rejected the application. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, the question which has come up for consideration is whether the information sought by the petitioner under clauses 7 and 8 qualifies to be 'personal information' as defined in clause (j) of section 8 (1) of the Act. As the petitioner has confined this petition only in respect of information sought at serial nos. 7 and 8, the other information is required to be supplied to the petitioner by the respondents in view of the aforesaid abandonment. The information mentioned at serial nos. 7 and 8 of the application under section 6 (1) of the Act are reproduced as under:- 7- Jh eaxyk feJk la;qDr lapkyd] e/;izns'k tulaidZ foHkkx dh fdlh Hkh ikfjokfjd ,oa ifjokj ds lnL; dh laLFkk dks tulaidZ foHkkx esa iSuyc)rk ;fn gS rks os fdl vk/kkj ij iznku dh xbZ] blls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkostksa dh lR;kfir izekf.kr izfrA 8- Jh eaxyk feJk la;qDr lapkyd] e/;izns'k tulaidZ foHkkx dh fdlh Hkh ikfjokfjd ,oa ifjokj ds lnL; dh laLFkk dks tulaidZ foHkkx esa vkt fnukad rd iznku fd;s x;s dk;kZsa dk fooj.k] dk;Z fdl vk/kkj ij iznku fd;s x;s ,oa Hkqxrku ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkostksa dh lR;kfir izekf.kr izfrA 9. Before adverting to the facts and the legality of the order passed by the respondents, it is condign to survey the legal provisions and legal authorities in this regard. So far as the first reason for refusal to supply information canvassed by the respondents that since the petitioner did not disclose any reason for demanding the information in the application, therefore, the authorities are not under obligation to consider his request for the information. 10. The provisions of section 6 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "6. Request for obtaining information. 10. The provisions of section 6 of the Act is reproduced as under:- "6. Request for obtaining information. (1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to" (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information," (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application." 11. From bare reading of the provisions of the statute especially sub-section (2) of section 6, it is axiomatic that the applicant making request for information under section 6 is not required/obliged to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. Under the statute, a format for section 6 has also been appended and in the said format also, there is no column to give any such reason for demanding the information. Under the statute, a format for section 6 has also been appended and in the said format also, there is no column to give any such reason for demanding the information. Therefore, the refusal by the respondents for want of reason in the application by the petitioner under the Act is unsustainable in law and also unreasonable. 12. Further, the aims and the object of the RTI Act as well as reasons in the introduction of exemption clause under the RTI Act was elaborately considered by the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 . In the said case the examinees had applied for inspection and re-valuation of the answer book. CBI Board has rejected the said application claiming the exemption under section 8 of the Act. After considering the provisions of the Act, it is held that the examinees had got the right to inspect the answer books and the Court held that the right to information is a facet of the freedom of "speech and expression" as contained in Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of the security of the state and subject to exemptions and exceptions. The Court has further held that the safeguards have been built into the RTI Act so that the revelation of information will not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. The Act provides for exclusions by way of exemptions and exceptions (under sections 8, 9 and 24) in regard to information held by the public authorities. In sum and substance, it was held that under the scheme of the RTI Act, the right of the citizens to access any information held by or under the control of any public authorities should be read in harmony with the exclusion/exemption in the RTI Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that in view of section 6 (2) of the Act, the applicant making request for information is not obliged to give any reason for the requisition and the other authorities were not justified in dismissing his application and appeal. 14. 13. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that in view of section 6 (2) of the Act, the applicant making request for information is not obliged to give any reason for the requisition and the other authorities were not justified in dismissing his application and appeal. 14. In regard to the second submission made by the respondents that the aforesaid information would fall within the ambit of personal information and exemption from disclosure, under section 8 (1)(j) of the Act is to be considered in the light of provisions of the statute. The relevant provision of section 8 (1) (j) is reproduced as under:- "8. Exemption from disclosure of information."- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-- (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." 15. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr. and ors. (supra). In the said case, the Apex Court considered that whether the request for furnishing information relating to the personal matters pertaining to the service career of an employee and the information regarding assets and liabilities, movable and immovable properties and other financial aspects which are primarily a matter between the employee and the employer which are governed by the service rules fell under the expression 'personal information' as the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. In para 13 of the said judgment even regarding the information which falls within the ambit of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, the Apex Court held that in a given case even the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Officer of the appellate authority if they are satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders can be passed but the applicant cannot claim those details as a matter of right. In the said case, it was held that income tax returns are 'personal information' and the same stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8 (1) of the Act unless involves a larger public interest. 16. The Apex Court refused to order disclosure of service records relating to a civil servant such as copies of the memos, charge sheets issued in disciplinary proceedings, immovable properties returns, income tax returns, details of investment made, the details of gifts received on the ground of protecting the officers' fundamental right to privacy. In the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61 , the Apex Court once again explained the link between the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 and the section 8(1)(j) of the Act. In the matter of Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, (2011) 1 SCC 496 Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has requested to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench to decide that whether the information sought regarding assets of the judges would be covered under the ambit of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. 17. It is to be examined that whether the information sought at serial nos. 7 and 8 falls within the ambit of section 8 (1)(j) of the Act. The said information sought are reproduced here as under (Hindi version is already quoted in para 8 of this order):- 7. Any family institution and institution of any family member of Shri Mangala Mishra, Joint Director, Public Relations Department, if panellisted with the Public Relations Department, then, verified and certified copies of all the documents relating to the grounds on which the same has been granted. 8. Any family institution and institution of any family member of Shri Mangala Mishra, Joint Director, Public Relations Department, if panellisted with the Public Relations Department, then, verified and certified copies of all the documents relating to the grounds on which the same has been granted. 8. Verified and certified copies of all the documents relating to the details of the work allotted, the grounds on which work was allotted and the payments till date to the family institution and institution of any family member of Shri Mangala Mishra, Joint Director, Public Relation Department. 18. The petitioner has sought the information that whether any institution of the family of the respondent no.5 or his family member is impanelled with the Public Relations Department where he is working on the post of Joint Director and if the impanelment has been done by the Department then he should be given the information that on what basis the same has been extended to the respondent no.5's family or his family members and he demanded the true copies of the documents in that regard. In furtherance of the information sought in clause 7, he further sought the details of the work assigned to the respondent no.5's family or his family member's institutions by the Department and also sought details regarding the demand made to them by the Department. He also requested for true copies of the documents in that regard. The aforesaid information do not relate to the personal information of the respondent no.5 since as per the contention of the petitioner, the respondent no.5 is holding the post of Joint Director in Public Relations Department and, therefore, he has sought information that whether the impanelment has been extended by the Department to the respondent no.5's family institutions or family members' institutions and therefore, he has sought the details regarding the work orders issued by the Department in favour of such institutions and the payments made by the Department. The information sought on the face of it relates to public interest, public trust and public accountability of a government servant towards public while holding a public office. 19. The information sought on the face of it relates to public interest, public trust and public accountability of a government servant towards public while holding a public office. 19. By stretch of no imagination, it can be held that these information sought by the petitioner are 'personal information' as mentioned in clause (j) of section 8 (1) of the RTI Act and it can also not be held that the disclosure of the said information has no relationship to any public activities or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The said information's are directly co-related with the payment of the 'public money' and does not fall within the ambit of 'personal information' having no relationship with any public activity or interest. 20. In the backdrop of facts of the present case and authoritative pronouncement of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr. and ors. (supra) and Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (supra), the orders impugned dated 25/04/2013 (Annexure P-2), 29/07/2013 (Annexure P/3) and dated 12/11/2014 (Annexure P/4) so far denying the disclosure of the information's as mentioned in serial nos. 7 and 8 of the application are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, hence, quashed. The authorities are directed to furnish the information's as requested in serial nos. 7 and 8 of Annexure P/1 to the petitioner. 21. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed.