9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected 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. - W.P. No. 16070 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2009 - K. Chandru, J. Shri T.P. Kathiravan, for the Petitioner. Shri G. Jehanathan, CGC, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward to challenge the order of the third respondent, i.e. The Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent of Post Offices, Gudur Division, State of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the order, dated 16-5-2008 which was confirmed by the second respondent vide his order, dated 2-7-2008 and the first respondent s order dated 1-5-2009. After setting aside those orders the petitioner wanted the information sought in his application, dated 11-3-2008 under Section 6 of the Right To Information Act (for short RTI Act). 3. In his representation, dated 11-3-2008, the petitioner sought for an information relating to one K. Ramachandra Rao, a retired time-scale Sub-Post Master, who was drawing his pension from Gudur Head Post Office, Nellore District. In the residential address of the said person given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justifying the denial of information. In paragraphs 21 and 22 of the counter affidavit, it was averred as follows : 21. I submit that the petitioner states that no prejudice will be caused to the said pensioner Sri. K. Ramachandra Rao if his residence address is furnished and he is liable for criminal prosecution for having committed forgery in production of promissory note. This department is no way connection with these things. 22. I submit that there is no violation of Article 14,16 19 of Constitution of India as alleged in this para since the information was not furnished as it relates to personal information and has not relationship to any public activity or interest under Section 8(1)J of RTI Act, 2005 (Annexure-R2). 8. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the information sought for by him? 9. The exemptions for refusing to grant information is listed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. It is relevant to extract the relevant exemptions found in Sections 8(1)(d), (e), (g), (h) and (j) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows : 8(1)(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... denial by the Information Officer does not arise. Therefore, on appeal preferred by the petitioner, the first respondent held that it is not an issue covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. If it is only covered by Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, the question of denial of information by the authority may arise. 12. Subsequently, this Court in A.C. Sekar v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thiruvannamalai District and others reported in 2008 (2) MLJ 733 held that an information even relating to the attendance put in by a third party was considered to be relevant and such information cannot be denied on the ground that it is coming under the private domain. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, it was observed as follows : 9. Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner to thwart the direction issued by the first respondent cannot be countenanced by this Court. In fact, in these days, when there is an increasing allegation of misfeasance and malfeasance committed in fair price shops are coming to the notice of the public, the RTI Act can be potent weapon to check such illegal and criminal activities of the staff employed in those shops. If ultimately by furnishing of such info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e civil litigation and therefore, such an information could not be furnished. 15. In the present case, the motive for the demand for a Central Government pensioner s exact whereabouts in execution of a civil court s decree may not be irrelevant. Whether the pensioner really exists on the date of receipt of his pension or whether any fraudulent claims are being made from the Central Government can also be a relevant factor. In those cases, if any person wants to find out whether the pension amount paid by the Central Government is really going to an actual beneficiary or bogus claims are being made, such information cannot be denied. 16. In the present case, a third party though had admittedly given an address in which address he was not to be found. The court notices could not be served on him. Whereas, he is getting pension from a particular post office regularly. A question came up before the Supreme Court as to whether a pensioner goes out of control of the Government once he retired from service and becomes a pensioner. After referring to the relevant rule, the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar reported in 1988 (2) SCC 52, in paragraph 5 observed as fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
