Right To Information Officer vs Raju Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 17005 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 21 st OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 29587 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    RIGHT TO INFORMATION OFFICER THROUGH
                                 OFFICE     ASSISTANT     COMMISSIONER
                                 COMMERCIAL TAX CIRCLE 5 BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OFFICE DEPUTY
                                 COM M ISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX BHOPAL
                                 DIVISION NO. 1 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - ADVOCATE )

                           AND
                           1.    RAJU KHAN S/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION:
                                 ADVOCATE HOUSE NO. 173 SSIDDHARTH NAGAR
                                 NEAR HIJAMUDDIN COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    MADHYA PRADESH STATE INFORMATION
                                 COMMISSION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER
                                 SUCHHNA BHAWAN 35-B ARERA HILLS BHOPAL
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )

                                 This petition has come up for admission on this day and th e court
                           passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the order dated 08.08.2022 passed in Case Nos.A- 2056/2022 & A-2057/2022 by the learned State Information Commissioner, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 12/23/2022 12:28:06 PM

respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No.1 directing the authority to permit him to inspection the certain documents as mentioned in the impugned order and when notify the cost of supply -----15 days then supplied those documents.

Shri Manas Mani Verma submits that the application which was filed by the respondent No.1 seeks following information:-

It is submitted that this includes certain information, which is personal in nature and is barred as per the provision contained in Section 69 (1) of the Value Added Tax and, therefore, such information cannot be supplied to the respondent No.1. It is also submitted that after passing of the said order by the

State Information Commissioner various representations have been received from the different parties including the Tax Bar Law requesting the authorities to not to disclose their personal information. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 481, reading para 70 it is submitted that Supreme Court has held following information to be of personal nature, which cannot be provide under Right To Information Act to third party.

Paragraph 70 of the aforesaid judgments reads as under:- "70 Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 12/23/2022 12:28:06 PM

members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investment, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive."

A perusal of the impugned order as read by Shri Manas Mani Verma reveals that in para 29 learned State Information Commissioner has directed as under:-

Thus it is evident that the learned State Information Commissioner has taken adequate safeguard to not to disclosed any information which can be in the nature of personal information. It has only directed to provide copies of the register, which shows the registration of a case and disposal of a case and so also the copy of the orders which has been passed by the authorities in exercise of quasi judicial function and not any personal detail like the books of account or copy of the returns filed by the parties. Thus when the impugned order is tested on the touch stone of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Agrawal (supra), so also after taking into consideration the provision contained in Section 69 (1) of Value Added Tax, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

In any case, the representations, which have been enclosed by the petitioner are subsequent to the date of passing of the order by the State Information Commissioner. If such parties had any grievance they had a right to approach said Commission instead of piggy ridding on the back of the State, which it appears to have something more to hide then the interest of the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 12/23/2022 12:28:06 PM

individual traders.

Petition is devoid of merits as this Court is of the opinion that no information in the nature of personal information has been asked to be parted with by the department.

Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Let the order made by the State Information Commissioner be complied within ten days from today failing which respondent No.1 will be free to file an application for imposing penalty on the petitioner.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Vin**

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD SHARMA Signing time: 12/23/2022 12:28:06 PM