Upsc vs O.P. Mehra
2013 Latest Caselaw 4843 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                               Date of Decision: 22.10.2013

+                              WP(C) No.6615 of 2011

UPSC                                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through:    Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Aditi Gupta &
                                      Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advs.

                                       versus

O.P. MEHRA                                               ..... Respondent
                          Through:    None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                                     JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

The respondent before this Court applied to the CPIO of the petitioner-Union Public Service Commission (for short „UPSC‟) seeking information on as many as 40 points. The information, however, was declined by the CPIO on various grounds as contained in the reply dated 31.8.2010. Being aggrieved from such refusal the respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The appeal having been rejected the respondent preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission (for short „Commission‟). Vide impunged order dated 25.7.2011, the Commission directed the PIO to provide information in relation to query Nos.1.36 & 1.38. The aforesaid queries read as under:

"1.36 Please give the copy of the remarks referred in Para-1.8 onwards above.

.... .... .... .... ....

1.38 Please also give the file noting and correspondence made by UPSC in this case."

Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the Commission the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

2. None has put appearance on behalf of the respondent despite due service upon him. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record.

3. As regards query at serial No.1.36 is concerned, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remarks, if any, of UPSC would be contained in the file notings and correspondence exchanged between the UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought and, therefore, if the respondent is provided the copies of the notings and correspondence to the extent it is permissible, that would serve the purpose of the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions, that inspection of the file in terms of the order of the Commission was later allowed to the respondent but he did not avail the opportunity given in this regard. As regards copies of file notings and correspondence exchanged between the UPSC and the Department which seeks its advice, this Court vide order dated 10.10.2013 passed in WP (C) No.4079/2013 titled UPSC Vs. G.S. Sandhu & connected matters took the view that the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought, when sought by a person to whom the said notings and correspondence pertain, have to be provided to him after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the

identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be. It was further directed that if the notings and/or correspondence referred above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the applicant.

5. In view of the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is disposed of by modifying the order passed by the Commission to the extent that the petitioner shall supply to the respondent within four (4) weeks from today, copies of the office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as copies of correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which the advice was sought after removing therefrom (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be. It is further directed that if the notings and/or correspondence in question contain personal information related to a third party such information shall also be excluded while providing information sought by the respondent.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

OCTOBER 22, 2013                                              V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh