2011 (1) TMI 1246 - HC - Indian Laws

RTI application seeking information relating to the expenditure, movable and immovable properties of the petitioner posted as District Food and Supplies Controller, Yamuna Nagar. - Held that - The word Third-Party has been defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, to mean a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority (and not otherwise). - It is not a matter of dispute that respondent No. 5-Shamsher Singh sought the information from the SPIO and it was the SIC, which directed the SPIO to supply the information, vide impugned speaking orders (Annexures P-4 and P-14). Since, the matter was between respondent No. 5, SPIO and FAA, so, the question of providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, did not arise at all, as he cannot possibly be termed to be a third-party, as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted as such, then no information is permissible, which would certainly nullify the aims and objects of the Act. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner stricto sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. - information under TRI to be provided - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the information sought falls under the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Whether the petitioner, being a third party, was entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act:
The core controversy revolves around whether the information regarding the petitioner's movable and immovable properties, expenditures, and permissions to purchase/sell property is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that this information is personal and thus exempt from disclosure. However, the court found this argument devoid of merit and misplaced. The court highlighted that the petitioner, being a public servant, was required under conduct Rule 18 to submit a return of his assets and liabilities. The information sought by the respondent was related to the petitioner's public employment and thus had a direct relationship with public activity or interest. The court concluded that the information did not fall within the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) as it was not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The court emphasized that the RTI Act aims to ensure transparency and accountability, and the disclosure of such information is justified in the larger public interest.

2. Right to Opportunity of Hearing for Third Party:
The petitioner contended that as a third party, he should have been given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders were passed. The court examined the definition of "Third Party" under Section 2(n) of the RTI Act, which includes a person other than the citizen making a request for information and a public authority. The court noted that the information was sought by respondent No. 5 from the SPIO, and the SIC directed the SPIO to supply the information. Since the matter was between respondent No. 5, the SPIO, and the FAA, the petitioner could not be considered a third party in this context. The court referred to the Gujarat High Court's observations in Reliance Industries Limited v. Gujarat State Information Commission and Others, emphasizing that the peculiar facts of that case did not apply here. The court concluded that providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was not required and that accepting the petitioner's argument would nullify the objectives of the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The information sought was not exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, and the petitioner was not entitled to an opportunity of hearing as a third party. The court reiterated that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability, and the disclosure of the petitioner's property details was justified in the larger public interest.