Telangana High Court
Palde Prasad, vs The State Of Telangana, on 21 March, 2023
Bench: J Sreenivas Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7771 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue Writ, order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in asking the personal information and the action of
the respondent No.2 in ordering the petitioner to submit
information asked for by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide
Memo Rc.No.D5/2363/12, dt.27.12.2017 and to submit
his original Service Register vide Memo Rc.No.D5/479/17,
dt.16.02.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to
the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay,
dated 22.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.1825/2013 and
consequently direct the respondent No.2 not to furnish
any personal details of the petitioners to the respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
2. Heard Sri. D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
In spite of service of notice, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did
not choose to enter into appearance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is working as Headmaster at Government Kolam
Ashram School, Adilabad and during the pendency of the
Writ Petition, he retired from service. While petitioner was
in service, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have made
applications to the Public Information Officer, A.T.D.O.
(T.W.), Adilabad on 28.11.2017 and 06.12.2017 seeking
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter called as 'the Act' for brevity) to furnish the
xerox copies of the petitioner's Service Register and
annual property statements, assets and liabilities. On the
said applications, respondent No.2 issued Memo vide
Rc.No.D5/2363/2012, dt.27.12.2017 directing the
petitioner to provide the said information. Thereafter,
respondent No.2 issued another Memo vide
Rc.No.D5/479/2017, dated 16.02.2018 directing the
petitioner to submit the original Service Register.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought information of the
petitioner's Service Register, annual property statements,
assets and liabilities under the provisions of the Act. The
said information sought by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is
exempted under the provisions of Section 8 (j) of the Act,
which is privileged information and respondent Nos.3 and
4 are not entitled for the same.
5. Respondent No.2 without verifying the provisions of
the Act, issued the impugned Memos dated 27.12.2017
and 16.02.2018, directing the petitioner to furnish Service
Register, annual property statements, assets and
liabilities and the same is contrary to the provisions of the
Act.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Bombay High
Court in W.P.No.1825 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted
application under Right to Information Act on 28.11.2017
seeking the following information:-
1. Xerox copy of the Inspection report of the A.T.D.O.,
dt.05.08.2017 of Kolan A.H.S. Boys, ADB.
2. Xerox copies regarding action taken against the
Head Master of A.H.S. Boys, Adilabad in pursuance of the
Inspection Report.
3. Declaration Certificate of Assets Liability of
P.Prasad, Head Master, A.H.S (K) Boys, ADB.
4. Xerox copies of S.R.Book of the P.Prasad, Head
MAster, Kolam A.H.S. Boys Adilabad.
5. Information regarding salaries and other
allowances of P. Prasad, Head Master, Kolam A.H.S.
Boys, Adilabad.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly
submits that as per the provisions of the Act, the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled for information
sought in their application in respect of Sl.Nos.1 and 2.
Insofar as the information sought at Sl. Nos.3, 4 and 5,
which pertains to the petitioner and the same is privileged
information and exempted as per the provisions of Section
8 (j) of the Act.
9. Having considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and after going through the material
available on record, it clearly shows that respondent Nos.3
and 4 made applications under Section 4 (4) of the Act on
06.12.2017 and 28.11.2017 respectively requesting the
concerned Public Information Officer i.e. A.T.D.O, (T.W.)
Adilabad to furnish the information as mentioned supra.
Basing on the said letter, respondent No.2 issued the said
Memos dated 27.12.2017 and 16.02.2018 directing the
petitioner to submit his Service Register.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended
that as per the provisions of Section 8 (j) of the Act, the
information sought by respondent No.2 is exempted. The
Bombay High Court in W.P.No.1825 of 2013 specifically
held that as per the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the
Act, the information sought by the parties therein, is
privileged information and also that is personal
information and the same cannot be disclosed. The
relevant portion reads as under:-
"It appears, on a reading of the impugned order,
that there is no finding in regard to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that the
disclosure of the personal information in respect of
the petitioner was justified in larger public
interest. Under section 8(1) j of the Act, there is no
obligation on the Information Officer to give
personal information, the disclosure of which has
no relationship with any public activity or interest,
or which would cause unwarranted invasion on
the privacy of the individual unless the authority
is satisfied that the disclosure of such information
is justified in larger public interest. In the absence
of any finding about the involvement of larger
public interest, the State Information
Commissioner could not have directed the
Information Officer to supply the personal
information about the petitioner."
11. In view of the above, the impugned Memos issued by
the respondent No.2 dated 27.12.2017 and 16.02.2018
respectively directing the petitioner to furnish Service
Register, annual property statements, assets and
liabilities of the petitioner, is liable to be declared as
contrary to the provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act,
and also against to law.
12. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned
Memos vide Rc.No. D5/2363/2012, dated 27.12.2017
Rc.No.D5/479/17, dt.16.02.2018 issued by respondent
No.2 are set aside to the extent of directing the petitioner
to furnish his Service Register, annual property
statements, assets and liabilities.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However,
in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders
as to the costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall stands closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
21-03-2023
SA
