2009 (11) TMI 718 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information - whether the information sought for cannot be granted since the reasons adduced were not convincing and the representation related to private litigation cases between the petitioner and the retired pensioner Ramachandra Rao and it did not come under the purview of a Public Interest Litigations? Held that - A pensioner does not cease to become totally out of control from the Government. On the contrary, his conduct and character are continuously monitored by the Central Government. In that context, the whereabouts of such pensioner is also very much relevant and it cannot be a private information. The authorities are bound to help in execution of Court orders. Instances are many and news is coming from many parts of India that pension claims are made even in the name of dead persons. Therefore, such information cannot be shut out when a query is made regarding the real address of a Government pensioner. In the light of the above, the impugned orders stands set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed. The respondents are directed to furnish the correct address of K. Ramachandra Rao to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the denial of information under the RTI Act.
2. Applicability of exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3. Relevance of the petitioner's motive for seeking information.
4. Government's control over pensioners post-retirement.
5. Public interest vs. right to privacy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the denial of information under the RTI Act:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Public Information Officer and the subsequent appellate authorities, which denied the information sought under the RTI Act. The petitioner sought the residential address of a retired Sub-Post Master to execute a civil court decree. The authorities denied the information, stating it was related to private litigation and did not fall under public interest.

2. Applicability of exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act:
The court examined the exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, specifically clauses (d), (e), (g), (h), and (j). These clauses exempt information that could harm competitive positions, is held in fiduciary relationships, endangers safety, impedes investigations, or invades privacy without public interest. The court found that the refusal by the respondents was not justified under these exemptions.

3. Relevance of the petitioner's motive for seeking information:
The court referred to precedents indicating that the motive for seeking information is not relevant when it comes to third-party documents. In V.V. Mineral v. The Director of Geology & Mining, it was held that the RTI Act does not grant full immunity for third-party documents and the authorities must weigh the conflict between private interest and public interest. Similarly, in A.C. Sekar v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, it was held that even attendance records of a third party could not be denied if it served public interest.

4. Government's control over pensioners post-retirement:
The court discussed the continuous control and monitoring of pensioners by the government, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar. It was noted that the government has the authority to reduce or withhold pensions for misconduct even after retirement. Therefore, the whereabouts of a pensioner are relevant and cannot be considered private information.

5. Public interest vs. right to privacy:
The court emphasized that the right to privacy fades in front of the right to information and larger public interest. It was noted that instances of fraudulent pension claims necessitate transparency in the address of pensioners. The court concluded that the authorities are bound to assist in the execution of court orders and that the information sought by the petitioner could not be denied on the grounds of privacy.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition. The respondents were directed to furnish the correct address of the retired Sub-Post Master to the petitioner within thirty days. The court highlighted the importance of transparency and public interest in the context of the RTI Act, ensuring that the petitioner's request for information was justified and necessary for the execution of a legal decree.

← Previous Next →