Bombay High Court
spb 1/4 26wp1825-13fl
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1825 OF 2013
Subhash Bajirao Khemnar ... Petitioner.
Vs.
Shri Dilip Nayku Thorat & Ors. ... Respondents
---
Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Petitioner.
Ms. A.D.Vhatkar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
---
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI. A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2013
P.C. :-
Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The
Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, as the
notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents and
the respondents are duly served with the notice.
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order
of the State Information Commissioner, Circuit Bench, Nashik
dated 04.12.2012, allowing the second appeal filed by the
respondent no.1 and directing the Information Officer to
supply the personal information about the petitioner's assets
on payment of necessary charges by the respondent no.1.
The respondent No.1 had filed an application under
::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2013 23:46:05 :::Bombay High Court
spb 2/4 26wp1825-13fl
the Right to Information Act, seeking a copy of the service
book of the petitioner and also the income tax returns and
information about the petitioner's assets. The information
was not supplied by the Information Officer in view of the
provisions of section 8 (1) J of the Right to Information
Act, 2005. The respondent no.1 preferred the appeal before
the first appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed.
The respondent no. 1 then filed an appeal before the State
Information Commissioner and the State Information
Commission by the impugned order dated 04.12.2012, allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the
concerned departments to supply the necessary information
to the respondent no.1 on payment of necessary fees and/or
charges. The petitioner has impugned the order in the
instant petition.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the State Information Commissioner was not justified in
directing the Information Officer to supply the personal
information in regard to the petitioner's assets and
income tax returns unless the Chief Information Commissioner
was satisfied that the disclosure of such information was
necessary in the larger public interest. It is submitted
that the Chief Information Commissioner has not recorded in
the impugned order that the disclosure of the personal
information in regard to the petitioner was necessary in
larger public interest. According to the petitioner, the
respondent no.1 was allegedly involved in extortion and
::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2013 23:46:05 :::Bombay High Court
spb 3/4 26wp1825-13fl
the petitioner's brother-in-law had filed a complaint
against the respondent no. 1 for extortion and the court had
rejected the application filed by the respondent no.1 for
grant of anticipatory bail. According to the learned
counsel, the information could not have been supplied under
section 8 (1) (J) of the Act unless the authority was
satisfied that the disclosure of the information was
necessary in larger public interest. The learned counsel
relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 3rd
October, 2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
27734/2012 to substantiate his submission.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and on a perusal of the provisions of the Act, it appears
that the Chief Information Commissioner was not justified in
directing the Information Officer to supply personal
information in respect of the service record, income tax
returns and assets of the petitioner unless the Commissioner
was satisfied that the disclosure of the information was
justified in larger public interest. 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
::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2013 23:46:05 :::Bombay High Court
spb 4/4 26wp1825-13fl
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.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed
and set aside. The second appeal filed by the respondent
no.1 before the State Information Commissioner stands
dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms
with no order as costs.
(VASANTI. A. NAIK, J.)
.....
spb/-
::: Downloaded on - 09/09/2013 23:46:05 :::
