Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs Central Information ... on 13 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12367/2009
RAVINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Mamta Chandra, Advocate.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AND ORS. ... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 13.10.2009
1. The petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings. He applied
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information and copy of
the file notings by officers resulting in initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against him. Information Commissioner in the second
appeal has rejected the said request of the petitioner after noting that it
will be against public interest to disclose information and views of various
officers, who had contributed to the process of initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner. The information is accordingly being
denied to the petitioner under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that file notings are part
of information and covered by the Right to Information Act, 2005 and in
WPC NO.12367/2009 Page 1
this connection has relied upon decision of Central Information
Commissioner in the case of the petitioner dated 25th April, 2007. In the
said decision, the Chief Information Commissioner has observed and held
that file notings are information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the
the Right to Information Act, 2005 but whether the file notings have to
be furnished and made available to an applicant will depend upon facts of
each case and whether the said information can be denied under any of
the clauses of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. In the present case, information has been denied to the petitioner
under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the
finding of the Information Commissioner is that it would be against public
interest to disclose the note sheets containing opinions and advices
rendered by officials in respect of departmental proceedings, which were
initiated against the petitioner. Right to information is not an absolute
right but is subject to Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Under Section 8(1)(j) information which causes invasion to right to
privacy is denied unless larger public interest justifies disclosure. The
findings of the Information Commissioner require no interference and are
in accord with the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the said Act.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2009
VKR
WPC NO.12367/2009 Page 2
