HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7771 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in asking the personal information and the action of the respondent No.2 in ordering the petitioner to submit information asked for by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide Memo Rc.No.D5/2363/12, dt.27.12.2017 and to submit his original Service Register vide Memo Rc.No.D5/479/17, dt.16.02.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, dated 22.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.1825/2013 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to furnish any personal details of the petitioners to the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. Heard Sri. D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In spite of service of notice, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not choose to enter into appearance.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Headmaster at Government Kolam Ashram School, Adilabad and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, he retired from service. While petitioner was in service, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have made applications to the Public Information Officer, A.T.D.O. (T.W.), Adilabad on 28.11.2017 and 06.12.2017 seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for brevity) to furnish the xerox copies of the petitioner's Service Register and annual property statements, assets and liabilities. On the said applications, respondent No.2 issued Memo vide Rc.No.D5/2363/2012, dt.27.12.2017 directing the petitioner to provide the said information. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued another Memo vide Rc.No.D5/479/2017, dated 16.02.2018 directing the petitioner to submit the original Service Register.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought information of the petitioner's Service Register, annual property statements, assets and liabilities under the provisions of the Act. The said information sought by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (j) of the Act, 3 which is privileged information and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not entitled for the same.
5. Respondent No.2 without verifying the provisions of the Act, issued the impugned Memos dated 27.12.2017 and 16.02.2018, directing the petitioner to furnish Service Register, annual property statements, assets and liabilities and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.1825 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted application under Right to Information Act on 28.11.2017 seeking the following information:-
1. Xerox copy of the Inspection report of the A.T.D.O., dt.05.08.2017 of Kolan A.H.S. Boys, ADB.
2. Xerox copies regarding action taken against the Head Master of A.H.S. Boys, Adilabad in pursuance of the Inspection Report.
3. Declaration Certificate of Assets Liability of P.Prasad, Head Master, A.H.S (K) Boys, ADB.
4. Xerox copies of S.R.Book of the P.Prasad, Head MAster, Kolam A.H.S. Boys Adilabad.4
5. Information regarding salaries and other allowances of P. Prasad, Head Master, Kolam A.H.S. Boys, Adilabad.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submits that as per the provisions of the Act, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for information sought in their application in respect of Sl.Nos.1 and 2. Insofar as the information sought at Sl. Nos.3, 4 and 5, which pertains to the petitioner and the same is privileged information and exempted as per the provisions of Section 8 (j) of the Act.
9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after going through the material available on record, it clearly shows that respondent Nos.3 and 4 made applications under Section 4 (4) of the Act on 06.12.2017 and 28.11.2017 respectively requesting the concerned Public Information Officer i.e. A.T.D.O, (T.W.) Adilabad to furnish the information as mentioned supra. Basing on the said letter, respondent No.2 issued the said Memos dated 27.12.2017 and 16.02.2018 directing the petitioner to submit his Service Register.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that as per the provisions of Section 8 (j) of the Act, the 5 information sought by respondent No.2 is exempted. The Bombay High Court in W.P.No.1825 of 2013 specifically held that as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, the information sought by the parties therein, is privileged information and also that is personal information and the same cannot be disclosed. The relevant portion reads as under:-
"It appears, on a reading of the impugned order, that there is no finding in regard to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the disclosure of the personal information in respect of the petitioner was justified in larger public interest. Under section 8(1) j of the Act, there is no obligation on the Information Officer to give personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship with any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual unless the authority is satisfied that the disclosure of such information is justified in larger public interest. In the absence of any finding about the involvement of larger public interest, the State Information Commissioner could not have directed the Information Officer to supply the personal information about the petitioner."
11. In view of the above, the impugned Memos issued by the respondent No.2 dated 27.12.2017 and 16.02.2018 respectively directing the petitioner to furnish Service Register, annual property statements, assets and 6 liabilities of the petitioner, is liable to be declared as contrary to the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act, and also against to law.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned Memos vide Rc.No. D5/2363/2012, dated 27.12.2017 Rc.No.D5/479/17, dt.16.02.2018 issued by respondent No.2 are set aside to the extent of directing the petitioner to furnish his Service Register, annual property statements, assets and liabilities.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to the costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
_____________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 21-03-2023 SA