Bombay High Court
Dr Lalit Beniram Harode vs Chief Information Commissioner ... on 19 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 104.16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.104 OF 2016
Dr. Lalit Beniram Harode,
Aged about 47 years,
Occupation-Deputy Controller
of Legal Metrology,
Amravati Division,
Amravati. .. PETITIONER
.. VERSUS ..
1] Chief Information Commissioner,
State Information Commission,
Administrative Building,
Maharashtra State, 15th Floor,
Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] Dr. Dipraj P. Ilamkar,
Dr. Ilamkar Nursing Home,
Lakhani. At Post & Taluka
Lakhani, District-Bhandara-441 804.
3] Public Information Officer in the
office of the Controller of Legal
Metrology, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai-400 021.
4] First Appellate Authority (Under
Right to Information Act) in the
office of Controller of Legal
Metrology, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai-400 021. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for Petitioner,
None for respondents though served.
..........
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:12:42 :::
WP 104.16.odt 2
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 19, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2] This petition takes an exception to the order dated
18.12.2015 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner
allowing the application of respondent no.2 seeking certain
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated
in brief as under :
On 21.7.2015, respondent no.2 demanded the
following information from the Public Information Officer
under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
(A) Provide the copy of qualification
certificate, appointment order copy,
Caste Certificate & Caste Validity
Certificate of Shri Dr. L.B. Harode, Dy.
Controller, Legal Metrology, Nagpur
Region, Nagpur.
(B) Name of the places where Shri Dr. L.B.
Harode has worked and its duration as an
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:12:42 :::
WP 104.16.odt 3
Inspector, Asst. Controller & Dy.
Controller, Date of promotion as an Asst.
Controller, Provide the copy.
(C) Provide the copy under which category
Shri Dr. L.B. Harode had been appointed.
(D) I had sent application dtd.20.04.2015,
27.04.15 and 16.06.15 to the Controller,
which action has been taken by the
Controller on my application. Provide the
copy & please tell me daily progress
made on my application so far i.e. when
did my application reach which officer far
how long did it stay with that officer and
what did he/she do during that period.
Provide the information.
(E) Provide the copy PHD of Shri Dr. L.B.
Harode and permission for PHD from the
department.
4] The Public Information Officer sought the
comments of petitioner on the application of
respondent no.2. Petitioner submitted his reply on
18.9.2015 and informed about harassment and alleged
illegal acts of respondent no.2. The first Appellate
Authority did not provide information to respondent
no.2. Being aggrieved, respondent no.2 preferred
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:12:42 :::
WP 104.16.odt 4
Second Appeal before the Chief Information
Commissioner. Vide impugned order, Chief Information
Commissioner directed to supply the information asked
by respondent no.2. Being dissatisfied with the order of
Chief Information Commissioner, petitioner has filed
present petition.
5] On hearing the learned counsel for petitioner
and on perusal of provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005, it appears that
respondent no.1 was not justified in directing the
information to be supplied to respondent no.2.
6] From the application under RTI moved by
respondent no.2, it can be seen that respondent no.2
has sought personal information regarding petitioner
and disclosure of the said information had no nexus
with the public activity or public interest. The
controversy is squarely covered by the unreported
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
3.10.2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.27734/2012 (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande .vs.
Central Information Commissioner and others). The
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 00:12:42 :::
WP 104.16.odt 5
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that disclosure of
such type of information having no relationship to any
public activity or public interest would cause
unwarranted invasion on privacy of an individual.
7] In the present case, respondent no.1, without
hearing petitioner, directed to supply the information.
There is no whisper in the entire order that information
needs to be supplied in larger public interest.
Respondent no.1, in view of the provisions of Section
8 (1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and
unreported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
(supra) ought not to have allowed the application
moved by respondent no.2.
8] In the light of the above, this court finds that
impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law.
Interference is thus warranted in writ jurisdiction.
Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.104/2016 is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 18.12.2015 passed by the
Chief Information Commissioner is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
(iv) No order to costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
