Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Sureshkumar Jaikrishna Patil And ... on 20 October, 2012
Bench: V.A. Naik
2010wp2157.12-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2157/2012
PETITIONER :- Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission
Co. Ltd. ThroughMadhao R. Pendor, Public
Information Officer & GM (TE), Corporate
Office, Mumbai, Plot No.C-19, E-Block,
Prakashganga BKC, Mumbai.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) Sureshkumar Jaikrishna Patil, aged about 51
ig Yrs., Occu.: Service, R/o B-102, Classic
Pawan Apartment, Near Priyadarshini T-
Point, Hingna Road, Takali Sim, Nagpur
440031.
2) The State Information Commission, Nagpur
Bench, New Administrative Building No.2,
First Floor, In front of Z. P. Premises, Civil
Lines, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. M. Kale, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. B. Wahane, counsel for the respondent No.1
Shri A. B. Patil, counsel for respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATED : 20.10.2012
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the
State Information Commissioner on 20/12/2011 partly allowing an
2010wp2157.12-Judgment 2/4
appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner to
supply the part of the information sought by the respondent No.1 in
regard to the other employees working in the department.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 as also an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 03/10/2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27734/2012
(Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner &
Ors.), it appears that the State Information Commissioner was not
justified in directing the petitioner to supply the information sought by
the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1, had by an application dated
06/06/2011, sought the annual confidential reports of ten employees
working in the department of the petitioner and have also asked for
annual performance appraisal reports for the relevant years. The
respondents had asked for the documents relating to the job description
of certain officers and the attested copies of representation, if any, for
the up-gradation of incorrectly recorded "Very Good" annual
confidential reports of nine employees. The respondent No.1 could not
have asked for the information sought by the application dated
06/06/2011 in regard to the ten employees mentioned in the
application.
The provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005 reads as
under -
8. Exemption from disclosure of information
2010wp2157.12-Judgment 3/4
(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 no 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.
In the instant case the respondent No.1 had sought the personal
information in regard to the ten employees, the disclosure of which had
no relationship to any public activity or public interest. In a similar case
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the aforesaid unreported
decision that the disclosure of such type would cause unwarranted
invasion of privacy of the individual. In a given case the Central Public
Information Officer or the appellate authority may direct that the said
information be supplied only if the authority is satisfied that in larger
public interest the information needs to be disclosed. In the instant
case, the State Information Commissioner has not disclosed the larger
public interest which necessitates the disclosure of the information by
the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 could not have sought the
information sought by the application dated 06/06/2011, in view of the
2010wp2157.12-Judgment 4/4
provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the State Information Commissioner on
20/12/2011 is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
ig JUDGE
KHUNTE
