9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Under such exemption clause, the disclosure may be refused if the request pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. A Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal - [2010 (1) TMI 1104 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while examining the scope and ambit of the exemption envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had held that personal information including tax returns/medical records, etc., are not liable to be disclosed. It has specifically been noticed in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o seven IAS officers. The information sought was in the following terms : Subject : Request for supply of information under Right to Information Act, 2005. Relating to the following IAS officers as directed by Deputy Secretary, Government of Haryana, Personnel Department, Civil Sectt., Chandigarh, vide memo No. 19/15/2009-1S(1), dated 1-12-2009. 1. Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, M.D., H.P.G.C.L, Panchkula. 2. Shri Madhu Sudan Parshad, F.C., Chairman, H.P.G.C.L.-cum-Secretary Power. 3. Shri Jyoti Arora, IAS wife of Shri Rajiv Arora, IAS. 4. Rajiv Arora, IAS, M.D., H.S.I.D.C., Panchkula. 5. Vimal Chander, IAS, D.O.B. 30-6-1952, Director D.R.D.A., Chandigarh. 6. Shri Satya Parkash, T.L., D.O.B. 21-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic Information Officer-cum-Under Secretary, vide letter dated 14-1-2010, Annexure P8, informed the petitioner that consent of the Officers concerned with regard to disclosure of information had been sought and two officers had objected as regards supply of information citing the bar contained in Section 8(1)(e)(j) of the RTI Act. The petitioner was also informed that response from the other officers was still awaited and, as such, it was not possible to supply the information sought. The petitioner preferred a first appeal before the Special Secretary to Government Haryana, Personnel Department (First Appellate Authority) and in terms of order dated 20-5-2010, Annexure P12, the appeal was rejected by holding that the information sought w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner seeking information under the RTI Act is not bona fide and rather stems from an oblique motive. It has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that even the instant writ petition has been filed in furtherance of the mala fide intentions of the petitioner and just to tarnish the image of the private respondents. Stand, in a nut-shell, taken by the respondents is that the information sought for by the petitioner would be covered under the exemptions falling under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act being purely personal in nature. Prayer for dismissal of the writ petition, accordingly, has been raised. 7. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the information sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x deposited year-wise. 10. The information sought would clearly be in the nature of personal information in respect of the private respondents and not relatable to the discharge of their duties in official capacity. 11. The conflict between the right to personal privacy and the public interest in the disclosure of personal information stands recognized by the Legislature in terms of exempting purely personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Under such exemption clause, the disclosure may be refused if the request pertains to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. A Full Bench of Delhi Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormation with the clear object to denigrate the officers concerned. Such findings recorded by the respondent Commission do not carry any rebuttal by the petitioner in the instant petition. 14. On the contrary, the pleadings on record and, in particular, with reference to the averments contained in paras 3 to 9 of the writ petition would suggest that the petitioner has been allegedly denied his right of a fair consideration for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and there is a clear pointer towards categorizing the private respondents as corrupt and dishonest officials. Clearly, the provisions of the RTI Act would not be available to a disgruntled employee seeking information as regards public officials which is otherwise per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
