2009 (10) TMI 958 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of information provided by the University.
2. Confidentiality and disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. Necessity to follow the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act.

Summary:

1. Adequacy of Information Provided by the University:
The petitioners, Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority of Calicut University, challenged the order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) on an appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent sought information regarding the re-valuation of an answer paper of Kumari P. Deepa. The University initially responded that the information could only be provided with Deepa's consent due to confidentiality. Dissatisfied, the 2nd respondent appealed, and the Appellate Authority provided detailed responses to the queries. However, the SIC directed the University to provide more specific information. The Court found that the information provided by the University was adequate and sufficient, noting that the University handles a large volume of answer scripts and it is not feasible to hold a single officer responsible for any loss.

2. Confidentiality and Disclosure of Information u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
The University argued that the details of the valuer and custodian of the answer scripts are confidential and exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court agreed, stating that the University holds a fiduciary relationship with the valuer, and such information can only be disclosed if there is a larger public interest. Additionally, the information qualifies as personal information, and its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy unless justified by a larger public interest.

3. Necessity to Follow the Procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act:
The Court emphasized the need to follow the procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act when dealing with third-party information. The SIC did not issue a notice to Kumari Deepa, whose information was sought, thus failing to follow the required procedure. The Court held that the SIC should have considered the views of the third party before ordering the disclosure of information.

Judgment:
The writ petition was allowed, and the SIC's order (Ext.P6) was set aside. The Court declared that the reply given by the Appellate Authority of Calicut University (Ext.P4) was adequate and sufficient. There was no order as to costs.