Ajitsinh Himmatsinh Padhiyaar vs Public Information Officer, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6108 Guj

                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/1345/2022                           ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

                                                                              undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1345 of 2022
==========================================================
              AJITSINH HIMMATSINH PADHIYAAR
                           Versus
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
                         OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
NIYATI V VAISHNAV(6168) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS. JYOTI BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                           Date : 21/08/2023

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Niyati Vaishnav, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shivang Shah, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and

2.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioner herien challenges the order passed by the Gujarat Information Commission i.e. respondent No.3 whereby the Gujarat Information Commission denied the information sought for by the petitioner herein on the ground that said information,as sought for by the petitioner, is exempted under the Right to Information Act.

3. The petitioner herein preferred an application under

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 29.12.2020 which is duly produced at Annexure "B" at page-19 and 20, which read thus:

"Application to obtain information under Right to Information Act Form-A I.D.No.

Date.29/12/2020 (For Office use only) To, Public Information Officer, Office of Director General of Police and Chief Police Officer, Gandhinagar.

(1) Applicant's Name :- Ajitsinh Himatsinh Padhiyar, Mobile No.7016931117 (2) Address :- Vrundavan-3, Opposite S.T.Division, Amreli. (3) Details of information required:

(1) Kindly furnish certified copy of Letters viz. (1) Letter No.107/sheet/DP/1096/2020 dated 30/06/2020 of Superintendent of Police, Amreli and (2) Order No.53/S.B./prati/G.U.V.N.L./1999/2020 dated 13/07/2020 of Superintendent of Police, Amreli as mentioned in Order No.KMK/1620/KH/18921435/2020 dated 14/07/2020 of Director General of Police and Chief Police Officer, Gandhinagar directing to transfer me from District-Amreli to District-East Kachchh, Gandhidham.

(2) Kindly furnish certified copy of Internal Inquiry Report

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

submitted by Superintendent of Police, Amreli to Director General of Police, Gandhinagar for my transfer.

(3) Kindly furnish certified copy of Office Note (Noting) put up by the clerk concerned before Director General of Police on the basis of the aforesaid letters and Inquiry Report for transfer and order passed thereon by Director General of Police thereon in his own handwriting as sought for by me at the aforesaid Point Nos.(1) and (2).

(4) I hereby declare that the aforesaid information sought for by me is not such as exempted from furnishing information under Section-8 or 9 of Right to Information Act, 2005 and as per best of my knowledge, the same pertains to your office.

(5) Non Judicial Stamp ticket of Rs.20/- has been affixed on this application.

    Place : Amreli                                 sd/-illegible
    Date.29/12/2020                           Signature of Applicant

It is requested to consider the following judgments to furnish the aforesaid information.

1. Appeal No.559/2006-07, wherein fine was imposed for furnishing wrong reply to the applicant and not furnishing information within stipulated time-period.

2. Complaint No.1695/06-07, wherein fine was imosed upon the Public Information Officer for not furnishing information to the applicant with malice intention. "

3.1 The said information came to be denied by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

competent authority by the communication dated 8.2.2021 wherein it was stated that the information does not fall under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act.

3.2 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 8.2.2021, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal wherein the said appeal came to be rejected by impugned order dated 25.3.2021 at Page-21 Annexure "C", taking into consideration the order dated 8.2.2021.

3.3 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal whereby the respondent No.3 confirmed the order passed by the competent authority, by the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 at Annexure "A" page-11. The paras-3 and 4 of the said order reads thus (Page-12):

"3. During hearing of the case, Public Information Officer and (Deputy Adminstrative Officer) Director General of Police and Chief Police Officer, Gandhinagar has submitted that vide Application of Form-A dated 29/12/2020 of the Appellant, copy of Letter dated 30/06/2020 of Superintendent of Police, Amreli as mentioned in Order dated 14/07/2020 of Director General of Police and Chief Police Officer, Gandhinagar regarding his transfer from District-Amreli to District-East Kachchh, Gandhidham, copy of Internal Inquiry Report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Amreli for his transfer and copy of Office Note put up by the clerk

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

concerned before Director General of Police in the matter. In this connection, he was replied, vide letter dated 08/02/2021 that information sought for cannot be furnished under the provisions of Section-8(1)(e) and (g) of the Right to Information Act. On 04/03/2021, First Appellate Authority and Director General of Police (Administration) conducted hearing of First Appeal preferred by the Appellant on 19/02/2021, wherein the appellant did not remain present. Vide Order dated 25/03/2021, First Appellate Authority and Director General of Police (Administration) considered the reply furnished by Public Information Officer appropriate and ordered to file First Appeal preferred by the appellant.

4. The Appellant submitted during course of hearing that in order to know the details as to what is mentioned in letter of District Superintendent of Police, Amreli by which he has been transferred, copy of the said letter should be furnished. However, he has neither been furnished copy of the said letter nor copy of Internal Inquiry Report. Public Information Officer has clearly replied citing the provisions of Right to Information Act-2005 that such information cannot be furnished, which deems fir and proper to this Commission. Thus, no further action is required in this regard.

4. Ms. Niyati Vaishnav, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities erred in refusing the information as prayed for by the petitioner. Considering the fact that the information pertains to the petitioner himself and that in view thereof, it was incumbent on the respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

authority to share the said information which pertains to the petitioner's own service record and that the documents were required to be supplied with respect of the conditions of service and the same would not fall under the exception of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.

5. It was submitted that the impugned orders can be said to be unreasoned orders. Considering the fact that it is left for the petitioner to infer as to how the said Section is not applicable to the petitioner.

6. Per contra, Mr. Shivang Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the information pertains to petitioner's personal information and the same would not fall within the domain of public information. Placing reliance on the ratio as laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was submitted that the competent authorities concurrently held that such information would result in an information which is an internal information and which has no public interest. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the respondent No.3 has passed a reasoned order wherein it is explained to the petitioner that the information sought by the petitioner would not fall in public domain. It was submitted that the information being personal information, the same would

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

stand exempted from the disclosure under Section 8(1)

(e) of the RTI Act, wherein the information is to be disclosed if it involves larger public interest. It was held that all the authorities concurrently held that the aforesaid information is such that it could not be granted under the RTI Act.

6.1 Mr. Shivang Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 has placed reliance on the following:

(i) In the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, reported in 2020 (5) SCC 481;

(ii) In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, reported in 2011 (8) SCC 497;

(iii) In the case of The Satara District Bar Association Satara v. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.3879 Of 2021 with Interim Application No.975 Of 2022 In Writ Petition No.3879 of 2021

7. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Shivang Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3. Ms. Bhatt, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

learned AGP also submitted that the information which is prayed for by the petitioner herein does not fall under the exception of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and that the authorities have rightly not entertained the said application. It was submitted that it was always open for the petitioner herein to ask for the information from concerned department and that the same would be supplied to the petitioner in accordance with law, however, the information as prayed by, would not fall within the public domain and, therefore, the said application is rightly not entertained by the respondent authority.

8. It is apposite to refer to ratio as laid down by this Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Ors, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212, wherein Para-13 reads thus:

"13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

8.1 The aforesaid ratio as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, was followed in SCA No. 15973 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019, whereby Paras-12, 15 and 18 read thus:

"12. From the above provision, it is clear that if the authority comes to the conclusion that information sought for includes the personal information of other persons, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, the authorities would be justified in denying providing of such information. "

"15. The Supreme Court in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) has held as under :

"11. We are, however, in this case primarily concerned with the scope and interpretation to clauses (e), (g) and

(j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act which are extracted herein below:

                     "8.      Exemption           from           disclosure           of
                     information:-          (1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, -

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

                  (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."

12. The petitioner herein sought for copies of all memos, show cause notices and censure/punishment awarded to the third respondent from his employer and also details viz. movable and immovable properties and also the details of his investments, lending and borrowing from Banks and other financial institutions.

Further, he has also sought for the details of gifts stated to have accepted by the third respondent, his family members and friends and relatives at the marriage of his son. The information mostly sought for finds a place in the income tax returns of the third respondent. The question that has come up for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

consideration is whether the above- mentioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

13. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

14. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

15. The petitioner in the instant case has not made a bona fide public interest in seeking information, the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. "

"18. The petition therefore, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged."

8.2 In the said order, the information which was sought for by the petitioner in the facts of the said case pertained to personal information and the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

8.3 The aforesaid ratio as laid down in SCA No. 15973 of 2019, came to be confirmed in LPA No. 148 of 2022. Considering the ratio as laid down in 2013(1) SCC 212, the dispute in question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench, wherein it was held in Paras-12 and 13 as under:

"12. A plain reading of Section 11 in conjunction with clause

(j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, it would leave no manner of doubt that information which relates to personal information

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

of an individual, the disclosure of which sought for by the applicant has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of such individual withholding of such information even if sought for would be justified and such information is not required to be furnished. However, if the Central Information officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority as the case may be is satisfied that in the public interest, such information is to be disclosed only in such an event the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act has to be followed and not otherwise. To put it differently, if the authority is of the opinion that it would invade the privacy of individual (third party), such information need not to be disclosed. It is the subjective satisfaction and objective assessment of the officer, which would suffice to qualify and fall within the four corners of clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 for withholding the information. However, in a given case if the authority viz.

Central Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority deems it fit in the larger public interest or is satisfied that furnishing of the information is required in the larger public interest, then necessarily before furnishing such information, the third party would be required to be notified or intimated as required under Section 11 of the Act and then proceeded with after having such party also. Otherwise, there is no need or necessity to resort to Section 11 at all.

13. In the aforesaid background, when factual scenario is examined, we notice, at the cost of repetition, that information which was sought for by the appellant was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

relating to third party information which is also not seriously disputed by appellant, has been withheld or not furnished to the appellant. In other words, the authorities have felt that it would invade into the privacy of third parties. Mere non- mentioning of larger public interest if the information is furnished to the applicant by itself would not render the order passed by the original authority or the appellate authorities to render it invalid or illegal. The learned Single Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and has rightly dismissed the Special Civil Application which would not call for our interference in appellate jurisdiction.

For reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass following

ORDER

(i) Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed;

(ii) Order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.15973 of 2019 stands affirmed;

(iii) Costs made easy.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 8 of the RTI Act.

"Section 8: Exemption from disclosure of information.--(]) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

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.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

(3) Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub- section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act."

10. Considering the facts of the present case, the petitioner herein has prayed for information, which can be said to be available to the petitioner in his fiduciary

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1345/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/08/2023

undefined

capacity and the disclosure of the same would not warrant any larger public interest. The case of the petitioner would fall under Clause 8(e) and considering Clauses 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j), the information also relates to personal information and the same would not have public effect. Respondent authorities having concurrently rejected the application seeking information, as prayed for, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, more particularly considering the fact that respondent No.3 has considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner and passed the reasoned order. No error of law is said to have been committed by the respondent authority.

With the aforesaid, the present petition is not entertained and the same is dismissed.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) SAJ GEORGE