Gujarat High Court

High Court Of Gujarat vs Gujarat Information Commission on 17 January, 2023

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18152 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed YES
to see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Versus
GUJARAT INFORMATION COMMISSION & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SHIVANG M SHAH(5916) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

Date : 17/01/2023

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The High Court of Gujarat on its administrative

side has filed this petition with a prayer that the

Page 1 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

action of the respondent no.1 i.e. Gujarat

Information Commission directing the petitioner

to provide information and documents to the

remaining points, available be declared as illegal

and violative of the provisions of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). A

further direction is prayed to quash and set aside

the judgement dated 23.06.2016 passed by the

respondent No.1 in Appeal No.769 of 2014.

2. Facts in brief indicate that the respondent no.2

who is a Judicial Officer submitted an application

on 17.02.2014, seeking information in reference

to 21 points. The application was received by the

Public Information Officer on 18.02.2014. On

19.02.2014 a money order was received.

Thereafter, the Public Information Officer

initiated a correspondence with the concerned

department for collecting the information as

Page 2 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

sought for by the respondent no.2 that involved a

considerable time.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the Public Information

Officer, the respondent no.2 filed First Appeal

No.37 of 2014 on 11.04.2014 before the

Appellate Authority. He contended that

information with regard to certain items viz. item

nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 had not been

provided. On hearing the parties, on 16.06.2014,

the Public Information Officer addressed a reply

to the respondent no.2 providing the details of

the information sought by him. In reference to

some of the points for which the information was

not provided, specific reasons were given. As a

result of such information being provided in part

and assigning reasons for not being available to

provide certain information, the Appellate

Authority rejected appeal of the respondent no.2.

Page 3 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

While rejecting the appeal the Appellate

Authority observed that as far as information

pertaining to points 1 to 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14 had

already been provided and with regard to the

other remaining points i.e. point no.9, 10, 14, 15

and 18 since the information was personal in

nature, could not be provided and the

information sought on points 17 and 19 was not

available on record and certain other information

was not clear and hence the appeal was rejected.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate

Authority dated 19.06.2014, the respondent no.2

filed an appeal before the respondent no.1. By

the impugned order dated 23.06.2014, the

Appellate Authority has passed a judgement

directing the Public Information Officer to

provide the remaining information available to

the respondent no.2 within 15 days from the

Page 4 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

receipt of the order. It is on this ground that the

petition has been filed.

5. Mr.Hemang Shah learned advocate for the

petitioner submitted that the Information

Commission could not direct the respondent to

provide the information which it could not

provide as it pertained to third party and in view

of the embargo imposed in Section 8(1)(j) of the

Act, it was rightly not provided. Reading

Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, Mr.Shah would submit

that the first part stipulates that personal

information which has no relationship with any

public activity or interest need not be disclosed.

The second part indicates that any information

which cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of

an individual should not be disclosed unless the

third part is satisfied and the third part of the

section indicates that information which causes

Page 5 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

invasion to privacy of an individual will not be

disclosed in larger public interest. He would

therefore submit that the information was

initially not causing as it was providing

unwarranted invasion of privacy of any

individual. He submitted that the reliance placed

on Section 11 on behalf of the respondent no.2 as

well as the Public Information Officer had no

intent to disclose the third party information and

there was therefore no breach of that section.

5.1 In support of his submissions, Mr.Shah

would rely on the following decisions:

(I) In case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande

v. Cen. Information Commr. And Ors.

reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212.

(II) A.M.Chauhan v. Public Information

Page 6 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Officer and Under Secretary rendered by High

Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application

No.15973 of 2019.

(III) R.K.Jain v. Union of India (UOI) and

Ors. reported in 2013 14 SCC 794

(IV) Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam and Ors.

reported in AIR 2017 SC 4040

6. Mr.M.M.Saiyed learned counsel appearing for

the respondent would submit that the respondent

no.2 was an ex-judicial officer who asked for

certain information from the Public Information

Officer. The Public Information Officer provided

the information for points 1 to 5, 7, 12 and 13.

However, in respect of the remaining points, the

officer did not provide such information on the

ground that it was personal in nature. The

Page 7 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

second appellate authority rightly directed the

petitioner to provide such information. He would

submit that with regard to the information in

context of other judicial officers, the information

not being supplied by relying on section 8(1)(j) of

the Act was misconceived. He would submit that

as far as the representation for transfer

submitted by the Judicial Officer Mr.D.S.Rajput

and Mr.M.B.Nandani who were in the same

batch, the information cannot be denied. There

was no violation of any information which could

have unwarranted invasion of privacy and

therefore, the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner was misconceived. Even

otherwise such information could have been

provided by issuing notice to such third parties

as held by the Supreme Court in the case of

C.P.I.O., Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Kucha Shah,

Page 8 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Dariba, Delhi reported in AIR 2019 SC (Supp)

2258. He would rely on the conclusions of para

90 of the Supreme Court.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsels for the respective parties, in

order to appreciate the controversy and the

information, it will be necessary to set out the

particulars of information that the respondent

no.2 has sought from the Public Information

Officer, High Court of Gujarat. The information

on the 21 points which were sought for by the

respondent no.2 are as under:

Point - 1 Certified copy of his Personal Data Form
submitted at the time of joining the
judicial service under the Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat.

Information The same is annexed herewith.
:

Page 9 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Point - 2 Certified copy of his service book.

Information Not available with High Court.
:

Point - 3 Certified copy of his Option form for
Annual General Transfer submitted from
first station-Rajpipla, Dist.Narmada.

And

Point - 4 Certified copy of his Option form for
Annual General Transfer submitted from
his second station-Sami, Dist.Patan.

And

Point - 5 Certified copy of his representation for
transfer submitted from his second
station-Sami, Dist.Patan.

And

Point - 7 Certified copy of remarks submitted by
the concerned Hon'ble Principal District
Judges on my representations for
transfer.

Information The Copies are annexed herewith.
:

Point - 6 Decisions of Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat on his option

Page 10 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

forms for Annual General
Transfer & representations for
transfer & communication
thereof (if any) to him.

Informa The abovementioned
tion: representations made by
Mr.P.C.Godigajbar were taken
into consideration at the time of
Annual General Transfer,
however, no order regarding his
transfer was made. The Judicial
Officer concerned who has made
representation regarding transfer
as per his/her choice of stations
on Educational, Medical, Family
or on Personal Grounds, except at
the time of Annual General
Transfers, are immediately
informed, in case of rejection of
his / her representation.

Point No.8:
Copies of last ten years transfer policies
pertaining to the subordinate judicial
officers of the Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat.

Information Copies of last ten years' transfer policies i.e.
: related circular dated 19.02.2011, 03.03.2011
and 29.06.2012, pertaining to the subordinate
judicial officers of the Hon'ble High Court of

Page 11 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Gujarat, are annexed herewith.

Point - 9 Certified copy of representations for
transfer submitted by the judicial officers
of my batch (1) Ms.B.R.Rajput & (2)
Mr.M.D.Nandani.

Information The information sought for is personal
: information in nature and it would not serve
larger public interest. Hence, the question to
furnish the certified copy thereof does not
arise.

Point - 10 Decisions of Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat on the representations for
transfer submitted by the judicial officers
of my batch (1) Ms.B.R.Rajput & (2)
Mr.M.D.Nandani.

Information In view of information at point-9, the
: information cannot be furnished.

Point - 11 Certified copy of the Statement of a
witness cited in the Charge Sheet.

Information It is stated that on perusal of the papers
: relating to the Departmental Inquiry initiated
against you (Mr. P.C Godigajbar), it appears
that no statement of witness cited in the
Charge-Sheet dated 01/10/2013 has been
recorded, prior to the initiation of
Departmental Inquiry against you (Mr. P.C
Godigajbar). The name of Registrar, District
Court, Dahod is mentioned as a Witness to
prove the correspondence made between

Page 12 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

High Court and the District Court, Dahod.
Therefore, question does not arise to supply
the copy of the Statement.

Point - 12 Material, record, information, etc relied
on by the Hon'ble High Court for
initiating Departmental Inquiry against
him.

Information The Copies of the Representation dated
: 17/06/2013 addressed to the Hon'ble
Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and
Explanation dated 14/08/2013 are annexed
herewith.

Point - 13 Certified copies of remarks, opinions,
orders, minutes of meetings etc of
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for making
decision to initiate departmental inquiry
against him.

Information The decision taken at the Standing Committee
: Meeting held on 29.07.2013, while
considering the representation dated
17.06.2013 of Mr.Godigajbar, is annexed
herewith.

Point - 14 Certified copies of complaints,
representations, resolutions etc..
addressed to the Honourable High Court
of Gujarat against Mr.B.H.Kapadia - (At
present - Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Vadodara) by the bar associations,
advocates & others for Mr. Kapadia's
tenure of service as Principal Civil Judge
at Dediapada during year - 2007 to 2010.

Page 13 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

And

Point - 15 Certified copies of actions taken by the
Honourable High Court of Gujarat
against Mr. B.H.Kapadia - (Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara) for the
allegations levelled against him by the
the bar associations, advocates & others
during his tenure of service as Principal
Civil Judge at Dediapada Court from year
-2007 to 2010.

Information It is stated as per the Judgement of the
: Supreme Court while passing order in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27734 in the case of
Girishchandra Ramchandra Deshpande Vs.
Central Information Commissioner & Ors.of,
the information sought for is personal
information in nature and it would not serve
larger public interest. Hence, the question to
furnish the certified copy thereof does not
arise.

IN view of above,the information sought by
you, relates to third party's personal
information, hence, the same cannot be
furnished to the applicant.

Point - 16 Details of Home town, place of practice,
personal data form, relation with any
Judicial Officer/Advocate, representations
for transfer (if submitted), option forms
of Annual General Transfer of the
following Judicial Officers subordinate to
the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat.1.
Ms.Sitaben Ttarani, 2. Ms.Mita Seta, 3.
Ms.Nirali Munshi, 4. Ms.Purvi Dave, 5.

Page 14 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Ms.Vaishali Joshi, 6. Ms.Zankhna Trivedi,
7. Ms.T.C.Patel, 8. Ms.J.R.Dodiya, 9.
Ms.Manju Pande, 10. Ms.A.R.Tapiawala,
11.Ms.B.R.Rajput, 12. Mr.M.D.Nandani,
13. Mr.I.M.Sardar, 14. Mr.B.H.Kapadia,
15.Mr.R.S.Purani, 16.Mr.Chirayu
Adhyaru, 17. Mr.C.H.Shah, 18.
Mr.H.H.Gandhi, 19.Mr.S.C.Gandhi, 20.
Mr.Zafar Sindhi, 21. Mr.Piyush M.
Unadkat, 22. Mr.R.G.Barot, 23.
Mr.M.K.Kher, 24. Mr.P.B.Patel, 25. Mr.
P.J.Tamakuwala.

Information The information sought for is personal
: information in nature and it would not serve
larger public interest. Hence, the question to
furnish the certified copy thereof does not
arise.

Point-17 Information regarding appointment of
Liason Officer & set up of Special
Reservation Cell in the High Court of
Gujarat for redressal of grievances of the
Judicial Officers belonging to Schedule
Caste.(Hon'ble Government of India vide
O.M. No.43011/153/2010 - Estt. (Res.) has
issued instructions for nomination of
Liasion officers, their roles, duties &
responsibilities & to set up a Special
Reservation Cell within the
Ministry/Department under the direct
control of the Liasion Officer to assist the
Liasion Officer in discharging his duties
effectively. As per the O.M., the Liasion
Officer has to provide necessary
assistance to the National Commission
for Scheduled Castes in the investigation

Page 15 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

of complaints received by the
Commission, in regard to service matters
etc.)

Information No information in this regard is on record.

Point - 18 Information regarding the reason for
termination of former Principal Civil
Judge of Garbada Court - Mr.R.L.Trivedi
and the directions of Hon'ble High Court
to regularise the disputed matters at
Garbada Court after the termination of
Mr.R.L.Trivedi.

Information The information sought for is personal
: information in nature and it would not serve
larger public interest. Hence, the question to
furnish the certified copy thereof does not
arise.

Point - 19 Information regarding the actions taken
for the security of Court building and the
Judicial Officers of Garbada Court from
May-2013 to February-2013.

Information Not available with High Court.
:

Point - 20 Copies of last 7 years' inspection notes of
District Court, Dahod for the inspection
of Garbada Court.

Information The Information as asked by you is not clear.
: Therefore, clarify about inspection done by
the High Court or District Court. In absence

Page 16 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

of specific details, the same can not be
decided whether it is in High Court record or
not.

Point - 21 Details regarding issuance of show cause
notice and subsequent actions taken by
the High Court during last five years for
use of intemperate language.

Information In absence of specific details, the same can
: not be supplied to you.

8. What is evident from reading the order of the

First Appellate Authority is that information with

regard to points 1 to 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 were

provided to the petitioner. As far as point nos.9,

10, 16 and 18, the request was rejected on the

ground that the information sought by the

petitioner was personal in nature and could not

be provided. On point no.15, it was the case of

the Appellate Officer and the Public Information

Officer that the information sought was with

regard to third party and it could not be

provided. What is evident from reading the

Page 17 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

information which was sought for was with

regard to the decisions of the High Court on the

option forms of general transfers and

communications connected with it and

representations and communications to him.

Point no.9 dealt with the certified copy of the

representations of transfer submitted by the

batch-mate of the petitioner and the decisions of

High Court on such representation. Relying on

Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act,

the authority in the opinion of this Court rightly

rejected such information.

9. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce the

contents of the order of the First Appellate

Authority of the High Court while rejecting the

request of certain information so provided. Paras

3 to 7 of the order of the First Appellate

Authority read as under:

Page 18 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

"3. It is true that, original application
of appellant which was of dated
17.02.2014 it was received by PIO office
on dated 18.01.2014, but, along with
this application no any money order as
mentioned in his application was
received by department. Hence,
necessary endorsement was made below
this application, thenafter, on
19.02.2014 the money order was
received and necessary receipt was
issued by 'Nazir' department thenafter
concerned PIO has initiated the
correspondence to concerned
department for collecting the
information as prayed for by the
appellant. Appellant has prayed for
total 22 informations. Hence, it
consumed reasonable time to collect the
same from various departments. At this
juncture, it is required to note that, from
12.05.2014 to 08.06.2014 it was
vacation in the Honourable High Court
of Gujarat and concerned PIO was also
entitled to get some period of vacation.

4. Present appellant in his appeal
memo has also mentioned that as he has
not received information within
prescribed time limit, hence, in his
written submission appellant has
mentioned that, appeal should be
allowed and necessary order be passed
to provide the information and to
impose necessary penalty on concerned
PIO for not providing information within
stipulated time. But perusing the

Page 19 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

original application, present appellant
has prayed for various information
under 22 points which requires some
time and keeping in mind the vacation
period also and perusing the
circumstances the request to impose
penalty on the respondent cannot be
accepted.

5. Now, perusing the application for
information pertaining to point nos'
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12 & 13 are concerned,
that information is already provided to
the present appellant along with
necessary copies. Even as per
information prayed for vide point no.6 is
also provided to the appellant.

6. Now for remaining information
pertaining to point nos'9,10,14,15,16 &
18 are concerned PIO has replied the
same that, "that information are
personal in nature and hence such
information cannot be provided". As per
the judgement of Honourable Apex
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
27734/2013, Girish Ramchandra
Deshpande Vs. Central Information
Commissioner and also as per the
judgment of Honourable High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in the case of
K.K.Sharma Vs. State of Haryana
reported in AIR, 2013 Punjab &
Haryana, 198, "any information which is
between the employee and employer
which are governed by the Service
Rules which falls under the expression

Page 20 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

'Personal Information' the disclosure of
which has no relationship to public
activity or public interest on the other
hand the disclosure of which would
cause unwarranted invasion of privacy
of the individual and if such information
are not in the larger public interest to
disclose in such a circumstances the
applicant cannot claim those details as a
matter of right and in such a case
petitioner has to make out his case that
this information is necessary to bonafide
public interest. Even the information
which is prayed for under point no 2 are
not related to discharge of his duties in
official capacity and thus no public
interest involve justifying disclosure of
information as that information are
protected as a privacy of individual
concerned. Thus, this information are
exempted. Hence, concerned PIO has
rightly denied to provide this
information. So far as, rightly denied to
provide this information. So far as,
information vide point no 17 & 19 are
concerned, PIO has replied that, such
information are not available on the
record of High Court and as per the
judgment of Honourable Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011, Central
Board of Secondary Education Vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
Honourable Apex Court has held that,
"As per the definition of information
in section 2(f) of RTI Act is
concerned, it only refers to such
material available on record of

Page 21 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

public authority" and when such
information is not available with them,
they are not compelled to provide such
information.

7. Now, so far as point no 11 is
concerned, necessary information in
detail is provided to the present
appellant in the reply given by PIO. So
far as point no 20 is concerned,
appellant is seeking the information that
copy of last 7 years of Inspection Note
of District Court, Dahod, for the
inspection of Garbada Court. But, this
information is not clear whether
appellant is seeking information about
the inspection done by the Honourable
High Court or District Court. Thus, in
absence of specific details pertaining to
inspection of Garbada Court carried out
by High Court or District Court, Dahod,
whether that details are available on the
record of High Court of Gujarat or
District Court at Dahod cannot be
ascertained. So far as point no.21 is
concerned, present appellant has prayed
for the information that details
regarding issuance of Show Cause
Notice and subsequent action taken by
the High Court during last 5 years for
use of intemperate language. PIO has
replied vide point no.21 that appellant is
not seeking specific information as to
whether it is pertaining to judicial
officers or litigant person or any staff.
Thus, in absence of any specific details,
it cannot be decided that, whether on

Page 22 of 50

Downloaded on : Tue Jan 17 20:59:57 IST 2023
C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

administrative side it was dealt with by
the High Court or on the judicial side.
Thus, concerned PIO has replied the
same at length and most of the
information are provided to the
appellant and PIO has given specific
reply for not providing information on
some points. Keeping in mind the above
two judgments of Honourable Apex
Court and Honourable High Court, this
appeal has no any merit. Hence, I pass
the following order:

ORDER

The appeal is rejected. The appellant be informed accordingly by RPAD as per rules 4(4) and 5(2) of the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2005.

If you are aggrieved or dissatisfied with the information / reply supplied by the Appellate Authority, Gujarat High Court, you may file an appeal before the Gujarat State Information Commission.

..."

10. No fault can be found with the order of the First

Appellate Authority in refusing to part with

certain information as is evident from the

decisions cited by the learned counsel for the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

petitioner. Paras 7 to 16 in the case of Girish

Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) read as

under:

"7. Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

and 3 were pertaining to appointment and promotion and Sl. No.4 and 12 to 15 were related to disciplinary action and documents at Sl. Nos.6 to 9 pertained to assets and liabilities and gifts received by the third respondent and the disclosure of those details, according to the learned counsel, would not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.

8. Learned counsel also submitted that the privacy appended to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act widens the scope of documents warranting disclosure and if those provisions are properly interpreted, it could not be said that documents pertaining to employment of a person holding the post of enforcement officer could be treated as documents having no relationship to any public activity or interest.

9. Learned counsel also pointed out that in view of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, the applicant making request for information is not obliged to give any reason for the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

requisition and the CIC was not justified in dismissing his appeal.

10. This Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 while dealing with the right of examinees to inspect evaluated answer books in connection with the examination conducted by the CBSE Board had an occasion to consider in detail the aims and object of the RTI Act as well as the reasons for the introduction of the exemption clause in the RTI Act, hence, it is unnecessary, for the purpose of this case to further examine the meaning and contents of Section 8 as a whole.

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

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

(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 consideration is whether the above- mentioned information sought for qualifies

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

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

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

(j) of Section 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.

16. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."

The aforesaid judgement indicates that certain

information which is "personal information" as

defined under Clause j of Section 8(1) of the Act,

cannot be provided. A coordinate bench of this

Court in the case of A.M.Chauhan (supra) in

paras 6, 7, 11 to 13 and 15 to 17 held as under:

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

"6. The petitioner submitted that the respondents were required to provide information sought for by the petitioner with regard to the notings on the file on which orders were passed with regard to retirement of the petitioner. It was submitted that the respondents could not have denied the information as notings contained details of information with regard to other officers also.

6.1) The petitioner referred to provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act read with section 11 of the Act and submitted that the notings containing information with regard to other officers cannot be said to be a third party information. It was therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to provide the information as sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon the decision in case of A.M. Kalra v. Ministry of Human Resource rendered on 14th February, 2017 by Central Information Commission to submit that in similar facts, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Cen. Information Commr. and ors reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212 is distinguished and the order of the Supreme Court is not a binding precedent in the facts of the case. It was submitted that the public record as defined in the Public Records Act is any record held by any Government office. Therefore, issuance of memos, initiating disciplinary action on imposing penalty does not fall in any of these category of private information matters and therefore, it cannot

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

be said to be personal or private information of the employee. It was submitted that as per section 8(1)(j) of the Act, information which is related to public activity is not a private information. It was submitted that decision of Supreme Court in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) cannot be used by the public authority to deny the information sought for by the petitioner by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the Act. It was therefore, submitted that if such information is denied, then information relating to any public servant in respect of his conduct or illegal activities, especially corruption could be withheld as secret and such an approach would defeat very purpose of the Act. It was submitted that respondents are required to be directed to provide the information sought for by the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Shivang Shah appearing for respondent no.3 relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) as well as decision in case of R.K. Jain v. Union of India (UOI) and ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 794 and submitted that the details sought for by the petitioner i.e. copies of notings on the file of the order of retirement and such other information cannot be provided as it includes the information with regard to other officers which would qualify to be personal information as defined in clause(j) of section 8(1) of the Act. He submitted that the Apex Court has held that performance of

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

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, disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. It was further submitted that in case of R.K. Jain (supra), the Apex Court in facts of that case after considering the various other pronouncements on this issue held that disclosure of Annual Confidential Report of an officer of the State is not in public interest and there is no obligation on part of the authorities to give the information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual

...

11. Section 8 of the Act pertains to exemption from disclosure of information and clause (j) of section 8(1) provides that there shall be no obligation on part of the authority to give any citizen information which relates to personal information, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

privacy of an individual unless the authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Sub-clause(j)of Section 8(1) reads as under :

"8. Exemption from disclosure of information (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, - xxx (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. 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.

13. In view of the aforesaid provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act, it would be fruitful to refer to section 11 of the Act which provides for third party information and

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

reads as under :

"11. Third party information.--

(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under subsection (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

(4) A notice given under subsection (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision."

...

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:

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

"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 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;

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

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 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.

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

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 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."

16. With regard to decision in case of A.M. Kalra (supra), is concerned, same pertains to information relating to reasons for revocation of punishment and was held to be directly connected to the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

public activity of public authority as it also deals with misuse of public money and therefore, competent authority was directed to provide such information. However, in facts of the present case, as the information sought for by the petitioner includes the information pertaining to other officers, the same would be hit by the provisions of section 8(1)(j) of the Act and therefore, the authorities have rightly denied the information sought for by the petitioner.

17. In view of the discussions made above and decision in case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (supra) as well as decision of Apex Court in case of R.K. Jain (supra), as the petitioner sought information with regard to notings on the file which includes personal information of other officers also, I find no reason to interfere in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the impugned orders passed by respondents no. 2 and 3 whereby order passed by respondent no.1 was affirmed."

11. So also the Supreme Court in case of R.K.Jain

(supra) in context of the information to be

provided under Section 8 held as under:

"11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records, the judgements as referred above and the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

12. Section 8 deals with exemption from disclosure of information. Under clause (j) of Section 8(1), there shall be no obligation to give any citizen 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 is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. The said clause reads as follows:-

"Section 8 - Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(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

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

13. On the other hand Section 11 deals with third party information and the circumstances when such information can be disclosed and the manner in which it is to be disclosed, if so decided by the Competent Authority. Under Section 11(1), if the information relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by the third party, and if the Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer intends to disclose any such information or record on a request made under the Act, in such case after written notice to the third party of the request, the Officer may disclose the information, if the third party agrees to such request or if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.Section 11(1) is quoted hereunder:

"Section 11 - Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party."

14. In Center for Earth Sciences Studies vs. Anson Sebastian reported in 2010(2) KLT 233 the Kerala High Court considered the question whether the information sought relates to personal information of other employees, the disclosure of which is prohibited under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. In that case the Kerala High Court noticed that the information sought for by the first respondent pertains to copies of documents furnished in a domestic enquiry against one of the employees of the appellant-organization. Particulars of confidential reports maintained in respect of co-employees in the above said case (all of whom were Scientists) were sought from the appellant-organization. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court after noticing the relevant provisions of RTI Act held that

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

documents produced in a domestic enquiry cannot be treated as documents relating to personal information of a person, disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such person. The Court further held that the confidential reports of the employees maintained by the employer cannot be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee and publication of the same is not prohibited under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act.

15. The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Public Information Officer reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 216 considered Section 11 of the RTI Act. The Court held that once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. Therefore, for providing the information the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The following was the observation made by the Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal (supra):

"22. Turning to the case on hand, the documents of which copies are sought are in the personal files of officers working at the levels of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary, Director, Additional Secretary and Secretary in the Government of India. Appointments to these posts are made on a comparative assessment of the relative

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

merits of various officers by a departmental promotion committee or a selection committee, as the case may be. The evaluation of the past performance of these officers is contained in the ACRs. On the basis of the comparative assessment a grading is given. Such information cannot but be viewed as personal to such officers. Vis-à-vis a person who is not an employee of the Government of India and is seeking such information as a member of the public, such information has to be viewed as Constituting 'third party information'. This can be contrasted with a situation where a government employee is seeking information concerning his own grading, ACR etc. That obviously does not involve 'third party' information.

23. What is, however, important to note is that it is not as if such information is totally exempt from disclosure. When an application is made seeking such information, notice would be issued by the CIC or the CPIOs or the State Commission, as the case may be, to such 'third party' and after hearing such third party, a decision will be taken by the CIC or the CPIOs or the State Commission whether or not to order disclosure of such information.

The third party may plead a 'privacy' defence. But such defence may, for good reasons, be overruled. In other words, after following the procedure

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

outlined in Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, the CIC may still decide that information should be disclosed in public interest overruling any objection that the third party may have to the disclosure of such information.

24. Given the above procedure, it is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the word 'or' occurring in Section 11(1) in the phrase information "which relates to or has been supplied by a third party" should be read as 'and'. Clearly, information relating to a third party would also be third party information within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. Information provided by such third party would of course also be third party information. These two distinct categories of third party information have been recognized under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is not possible for this Court in the circumstances to read the word 'or' as 'and'. The mere fact that inspection of such files was permitted, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1) does not mean that, at the stage of furnishing copies of the documents inspected, the said procedure can be waived. In fact, the procedure should have been followed even prior to permitting inspection, but now the clock cannot be put back as far as that is concerned.

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world. There may be an officer who may not want the whole world to know why he or she was overlooked for promotion. The defence of privacy in such a case cannot be lightly brushed aside saying that since the officer is a public servant he or she cannot possibly fight shy of such disclosure. There may be yet another situation where the officer may have no qualms about such disclosure. And there may be a third category where the credentials of the officer appointed may be thought of as being in public interest to be disclosed. The importance of the post held may also be a factor that might weigh with the information officer. This exercise of weighing the competing interests can possibly be undertaken only after hearing all interested parties. Therefore the procedure under Section 11(1) RTI Act.

26. This Court, therefore, holds that the CIC was not justified in overruling the objection of the UOI on the basis of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act and directing the UOI and the DoPT to provide copies of the documents as sought by Mr. Kejriwal. Whatever may

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

have been the past practice when disclosure was ordered of information contained in the files relating to appointment of officers and which information included their ACRs, grading, vigilance clearance etc., the mandatory procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The short question framed by this Court in the first paragraph of this judgment was answered in the affirmative by the CIC. This Court reverses the CIC's impugned order and answers it in the negative.

27. The impugned order dated 12th June 2008 of the CIC and the consequential order dated 19th November 2008 of the CIC are hereby set aside. The appeals by Mr. Kejriwal will be restored to the file of the CIC for compliance with the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) RTI Act limited to the information Mr. Kejriwal now seeks."

16. Recently similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212. That was a case in which Central Information Commissioner denied the information pertaining to the service career of the third party to the said case and also denied the details relating to assets, liabilities, movable

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

and immovable properties of the third party on the ground that the information sought for was qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In that case this Court also considered the question whether the orders of censure/punishment, etc. are personal information and the performance of an employee/officer in an organization, commonly known as Annual Confidential Report can be disclosed or not. This Court after hearing the parties and noticing the provisions of RTI Act held:

"11. 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 been 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 consideration is: whether the abovementioned information sought for qualifies to be "personal information" as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

12. 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 or 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.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

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.

14. 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.

15. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the information sought for is for the larger public interest. That being the fact, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Hence, the same is dismissed."

17. In view of the discussion made above and the decision in this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande(supra), as the appellant sought for inspection of documents relating to the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR and the 'follow up action' taken therein on the question of integrity, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs."

C/SCA/18152/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/01/2023

12.In light of the aforesaid provisions, the directions

issued by the Second Appellate Authority i.e. the

respondent no.1 directing the petitioner to

supply all the information available is contrary to

law and therefore deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

13.Accordingly the petition is allowed. The order of

the First Appellate Authority i.e. Gujarat

Information Commission dated 23.06.2016 in

Appeal No.7691 of 2014 is quashed and set

aside. No costs.