Madras High Court
S.M.A.Pon Gandhimathi Nathan vs The State Information ... on 28 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD).No.244 of 2022
S.M.A.Pon Gandhimathi Nathan
... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State Information Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No.2, Theagaraya Salai,
Near Aalai Amman Kovil, Teynampet,
Chennai 18.
2. The Appellate Authority / The District Collector,
District Collectorate, Thoothukudi District.
3. S.Amudha
Public Information Officer /
Personal Assistant to Sub Collector,
District Collectorate Campus,
Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first
respondent to issue appropriate orders against the third respondent under
section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by considering the
representation, dated 02.07.2021 made by the petitioner within the time
stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash
For R2 : Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan
Special Government Pleader
For R1, R3 : Mr.K.K.Senthil
Standing Counsel
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus, to
direct the first respondent/ State Information Commissioner, Tamil Nadu
Information, Government of Chennai to take appropriate action against the
third respondent/Public Information Officer / Personal Assistant to Sub-
Collector, District Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi District, who had been
shown as a respondent in her personal name, under Section 20 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by considering the
representation, dated 02.07.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
2.The petitioner, had originally sought information under Section
6 of the Act from the District Collector, Thoothukudi to furnish the
information about the disciplinary proceedings. An order had been passed
under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
by the District Collector in letter No.Na.Ka.D2.2236.2014, dated 03.12.2014
against one Justin Chelladurai, who was working as Tahsildhar, Thoothukudi.
The third respondent/ Personal Assistant to Sub-Collector, District
Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi District had denied to furnish the
information by letter, dated 15.10.2020, stating that the information sought by
the petitioner was personal information.
3.Then the petitioner had filed a first appeal before the second
respondent/District Collector, Thoothukudi District on 29.10.2010. The
second respondent had again refused to furnish the details.
4.The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the first
respondent. Then the petitioner had also filed WP(MD)No.1353 of 2021,
seeking a direction against the first respondent to dispose of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
appeal filed by the petitioner. In that writ petition, orders were passed.
Thereafter, the first respondent had passed further orders. Finally, the
information was given to the petitioner on 27.11.2021.
5.Now, the writ petition has been filed seeking to take necessary
action in accordance with the provision of Section 20 of Right to Information
Act, 2005, for providing information, after much delay.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Standing counsel appearing for the first and third respondents, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. The third
respondent had been impleaded in her personal capacity.
7.In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, he had
stated that the information relating to any noting in the Annual Confidential
Report or notices relating to disciplinary proceedings, cannot be divulged as
they are categorized as personal information and exempted information as per
Section 8 of the Act. It is noted that disciplinary proceedings if initiated
against a public servant will have to be dealt with in manner to law. Third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
parties cannot have the privilege of seeking that particular information.
8.The third and second respondents had correctly refused the
information sought by the petitioner. However, consequent to the order of
first respondent, they were under compulsion to disclose the information and
had done so.
9.Now, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for the
delay caused by the third respondent in providing the information, under
Section 20 of the Act.
10.The said information should not have been granted. It had
been held in 2014(14) SCC 794 in R.K.Jain vs Union Of India & Another
that any noting in the Annual Confidential Reports are personal information
and should not be disclosed. It would touch upon the integrity of the person
and upon the service of the said individual. It was held as follows:
“14.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
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.
19.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,
moveable 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.
20.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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
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.
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 organisation 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
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 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.”
21. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
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.”
11.The pronouncement of law laid down is very clear. The
information relating to the confidential report, which would also relate to
details about disciplinary proceedings initiated of any public servant are
categorized as personal information and cannot be divulged.
12.The petitioner has now the benefit of the information sought.
He has to satisfied with that. When the information itself should never been
disclosed by the first respondent, the petitioner cannot seek action against the
third respondent, for delay in furnishing such information. The writ petition
itself is misconceived.
13.This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs
28.03.2023
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes/ No
PNM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
To
1. The State Information Commissioner,
Tamil Nadu Information Commission,
No.2, Theagaraya Salai,
Near Aalai Amman Kovil, Teynampet,
Chennai 18.
2. The Appellate Authority / The District Collector,
District Collectorate, Thoothukudi District.
3. S.Amudha
Public Information Officer /
Personal Assistant to Sub Collector,
District Collectorate Campus,
Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.244 of 2022
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
W.P(MD).No.244 of 2022
28.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
